Opinion ID: 166608
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: Our standard of review is well established: In an appeal from a bench trial, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. . . . Thus, we will reverse the district court’s finding only if it is without factual support in the record or if, after reviewing all the evidence, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Keys Youth Servs, Inc. v. City of Olathe, 248 F.3d 1267, 1274 (10th Cir. 2001) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, we must . . . affirm the court’s choice [if it reasonably could have chosen either of two plausible interpretations of the facts]. As the Supreme Court has stated: 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. -3- Id. at 1275 (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985)).