LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Interference by Supreme Court – Need for Cogent Reasons
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An appellant who desires that this court should upset the concurrent findings of two lower courts has the burden of showing in a clear and positive way that such findings violate some principles of law or procedure and therefore deserve to be overturned.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"An appellant who desires that this court should upset the concurrent findings of two lower courts has the burden of showing in a clear and positive way that such findings violate some principles of law or procedure and therefore deserve to be overturned."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
An appellant seeking to upset concurrent findings of two lower courts must show, clearly and positively, that the findings violate some principle of law or procedure. Mere disagreement is insufficient. The burden is heavy. The appellant must demonstrate perversity, miscarriage of justice, or error of law. The principle respects the fact-finding roles of lower courts and promotes finality. The appellant cannot simply re-argue the evidence. The violation must be manifest from the record. The court will not interfere if the findings are reasonably supported by evidence. The principle applies to all appeals against concurrent findings. The appellant must point to specific errors, not general dissatisfaction. The court’s role is corrective, not substitutional.
