A construction contractor brought a breach of contract claim in federal court against a homeowner who had hired the contractor t
o build an apartment over an existing garage. The action turned on the scope of the work covered by the contract. The contractor and the homeowner were the only witnesses at the bench trial, and they strongly disagreed about the scope of the work. At the end of the trial, the judge stated findings of fact on the record but never issued a written opinion. Neither party objected to the findings. The judge found in favor of the homeowner, and the contractor appealed. Is the appellate court likely to overturn the findings?
No, because the appellate court must give due regard to the trial judge's opportunity to determine witness credibility.
Explanation:
Appellate courts or appeal courts are those that are empowered to review judgements that have been given at trial by lower courts.
Appeal courts exist at the state and federal level and they do not use a jury to review judgements.
In the given instance the construction contractor and home owner did not disagree on the findings of the trial judge and never issued a written opinion.
The appeal court is not likely to overturn the findings because they must give due regard to the trial judge's opportunity to determine witness credibility.
The trial judge should give a written opinion on the matter before the appeal court can delibrate
Gideon v. Wainwright, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on March 18, 1963, ruled (9–0) that states are required to provide legal counsel to indigent defendants charged with a felony
