Standards of Review. The Compliance Officer will perform the following functions:
Standards of Review. In exercising any authority created by the Easement to inspect the Façades; to review any construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance; or to review casualty damage or to reconstruct or approve reconstruction of the Façades following casualty damage, Grantee shall apply the Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings issued and as may be amended from time to time by the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (hereinafter “the Standards”), as well as the Park City Design Guidelines for Historic Districts and Historic Sites (hereinafter “the Guidelines”) and any state guidelines considered appropriate by Grantee for review of work affecting historically or architecturally significant structures or for construction of new structures within historically or architecturally significant structures or for construction of new structures within historically, architecturally, or culturally significant sites or areas. In the event the Standards or Guidelines are abandoned or materially altered or otherwise become, in the reasonable judgment of Grantee, inappropriate for the purposes set forth above, Grantee may apply reasonable alternative standards and notify Grantor of the substituted standards.
Standards of Review. A. Factual Findings and Conclusions of Law This court reviews a trial court’s factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard. Xxxxxx x. Xxxxxxxx, 127 Hawaiʻi 490, 495, 280 P.3d 88, 93 (2012) (citing Xxxxxx v. Weeks, 104 Hawaiʻi 43, 51, 85 P.3d 150, 158 (2004)). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction in reviewing the entire evidence that a mistake has been committed. A (. . .continued) undivided interest held by Xxxxxxx.” Xxxxx, Judge Xxxxxxxx concluded that this argument had been waived. Had the issue not been waived, Judge Xxxxxxxx concluded, on the merits, that Xxxxxxx failed to refute Xxxxxxx’x documentary evidence establishing that Xxxxxxx held only a 3/5824 undivided interest in Parcel 33, thereby failing to raise a genuine issue of material fact. finding of fact is also clearly erroneous when the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding. We have defined substantial evidence as credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion. Xxxxxx, 104 Hawaiʻi at 51, 85 P.3d at 158 (alterations omitted) (quoting Beneficial Hawaiʻi, Inc. x. Xxxx, 96 Hawaiʻi 289, 305, 30 P.3d 895, 911 (2001)). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, under the right/wrong standard of review. Xxxxxx, 127 Hawaiʻi at 495, 280 P.3d at 93; State x. Xxxx, 79 Hawaiʻi 1, 3, 897 P.2d 928, 930 (1995).
Standards of Review. The standards for review shall be whether there is good cause to conclude:
Standards of Review. A. Summary Judgment An appellate court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards as a trial court: Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A fact is material if proof of that fact would have the effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the parties. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. In other words, we must view all of the evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.
Standards of Review. Our scope of review in an appeal from an orphans’ court’s decision is limited. When reviewing the orphans’ court’s decision, we must determine whether the record is free from legal error and the orphans’ court’s factual findings are supported by the evidence. In re Estate of Angle, 777 A.2d 114, 122 (Pa. Super. 2001).
Standards of Review. In exercising any authority created by the Easement to inspect the Façades; to review any construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance; or to review casualty damage or to reconstruct or approve reconstruction of the Façades followingcasualty damage, DDA shall apply the Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings issued and as may be amended from time to time by the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (hereinafter “the Standards”) and any state guidelines considered appropriate by DDA for review of work affecting historically or architecturally significant structures.
