Estate of Burton W. Kanter, Deceased, Joshua S. Kanter, Executor, and Naomi R. Kanter, et al. - Page 252

                                                 -32-                                                   
            mistake has been committed.’”  Anderson v. City of Bessemer,                                
            N.C., 470 U.S. at 565.  The Supreme Court embellished the                                   
            “clearly erroneous” standard of review as follows:                                          
                  If the district court’s account of the evidence is                                    
                  plausible in light of the record viewed in its                                        
                  entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even                                
                  though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier                                
                  of fact, it would have weighed the evidence                                           
                  differently.  Where there are two permissible views of                                
                  the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them                                    
                  cannot be clearly erroneous.  United States v. Yellow                                 
                  Cab Co., 338 U.S. 338, 342 (1949); see also Inwood                                    
                  Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S.                               
                  844 (1982).                                                                           
                        This is so even when the district court’s findings                              
                  do not rest on credibility determinations, but are                                    
                  based instead on physical or documentary evidence or                                  
                  inferences from other facts. * * *  [Id. at 573-574;                                  
                  emphasis added.]                                                                      
                  Although the phrase “manifestly unreasonable” does not                                
            appear in the Anderson opinion, the Supreme Court did discuss the                           
            “special deference” to be paid to a trial judge’s credibility                               
            determinations.  On this point, the Supreme Court stated:                                   
                        When findings are based on determinations                                       
                  regarding the credibility of witnesses, Rule 52(a)                                    
                  demands even greater deference to the trial court’s                                   
                  findings; for only the trial judge can be aware of the                                
                  variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so                                 
                  heavily on the listener’s understanding of and belief                                 
                  in what is said.  See Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412,                               
                  (1985).  This is not to suggest that the trial judge                                  
                  may insulate his findings from review by denominating                                 
                  them credibility determinations, for factors other than                               
                  demeanor and inflection go into the decision whether or                               
                  not to believe a witness.  Documents or objective                                     
                  evidence may contradict the witness’ story; or the                                    
                  story itself may be so internally inconsistent or                                     
                  implausible on its face that a reasonable factfinder                                  
                  would not credit it. Where such factors are present,                                  





Page:  Previous  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011