-31-
a “clearly erroneous” standard of review should be applied in
such cases. Stone v. Commissioner, supra at 346-347.
Our understanding of the standard of deference to apply to
findings of fact and credibility determinations in the STJ report
is further informed by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit: “Credibility determinations are entitled to great
deference, and must not be disturbed unless manifestly
unreasonable.” Ballard v. Commissioner, 429 F.3d at 1031 (citing
Anderson v. City of Bessemer, N.C., supra at 575).
In Anderson, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide
whether a Court of Appeals correctly rejected the trial court’s
findings of fact in support of a judgment in favor of a plaintiff
in a sex discrimination case. The Supreme Court held the Court
of Appeals misapplied the “clearly erroneous” standard of review
governing a Court of Appeals’ review of a District Court’s
findings of fact as set forth in rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.18 Quoting United States v. United States
Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948), the Supreme Court stated
that “‘[a] finding is “clearly erroneous” when although there is
evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire
evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a) states in pertinent part:
“Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence,
shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard
shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of
the credibility of the witnesses.”
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011