The following excerpt is from Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2000):
"[W]hen . . . the trial court determination is one for which neither a clear statutory prescription nor a historical tradition exists, it is uncommonly difficult to derive from the pattern of appellate review of other questions an analytical framework that will yield the correct [standard of review]." Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 558 (1988). Here, the task of divining a fruitful analytical framework is particularly difficult because "other questions" (id.) which intuitively seem likely subjects for analogous appellate review have been addressed by the courts only rarely and, moreover, have yielded conflicting results.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.