Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Standard Of Review

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Standard Of ReviewQuestion 1 of 20

You are an attorney advising a client who lost a jury trial. Your client wants to appeal, arguing that the judge gave a legally correct but confusingly worded jury instruction on the issue of proximate cause. You had objected at trial, arguing that the instruction's phrasing could mislead the jury, but the judge overruled your objection, stating the instruction was adequate. You must now explain to your client the likelihood of success on this issue on appeal.

In assessing the appeal, which standard of review will the appellate court most likely apply to the trial court's decision regarding the specific phrasing and formulation of the jury instruction? Select one.

De novo, because any issue related to jury instructions is treated as a question of law.

Clearly erroneous, to determine if the judge's finding that the instruction was adequate was factually mistaken.

Abuse of discretion, because the trial judge has considerable discretion in the wording of jury instructions.

Plain error, because the client is alleging that the jury was fundamentally misled by the court.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Standard Of Review

Practice Standard Of Review in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Standard Of Review, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

De novo, because any issue related to jury instructions is treated as a question of law.
Clearly erroneous, to determine if the judge's finding that the instruction was adequate was factually mistaken.
Abuse of discretion, because the trial judge has considerable discretion in the wording of jury instructions. (correct answer)
Plain error, because the client is alleging that the jury was fundamentally misled by the court.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Appellate courts distinguish between the legal accuracy of a jury instruction and its specific wording. While the legal accuracy is reviewed de novo, the trial court's decisions on the phrasing, style, and emphasis of the instructions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. The trial judge is given deference in how to best explain the law to the jury. A is incorrect because it overgeneralizes; only the legal substance is reviewed de novo. B is the incorrect standard for this type of ruling. D is incorrect because the 'plain error' standard applies only when an objection was not properly preserved at trial; here, an objection was made.

Question 2

In a personal injury lawsuit, the case went to a jury trial. The jury heard conflicting testimony from the plaintiff's and defendant's expert witnesses regarding the cause of the plaintiff's injury. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $500,000. The defendant had timely moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) at the close of evidence, which the court denied. The defendant now appeals, arguing that the plaintiff's expert was not credible and that the jury's verdict was not supported by the evidence.

In reviewing the jury's verdict, what standard will the appellate court apply? Select one.

It will review the evidence de novo to determine which expert was more credible.
It will affirm the verdict if there was a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to have reached its conclusion. (correct answer)
It will determine if the trial court's decision to deny the JMOL motion was an abuse of discretion.
It will reverse the verdict if it finds that the jury's conclusion on causation was clearly erroneous.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. When reviewing a jury verdict, an appellate court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party and may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. The standard is highly deferential: the verdict will be upheld if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, a reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for its verdict. This is also known as the 'substantial evidence' standard. A is incorrect because appellate courts do not re-weigh evidence or assess witness credibility. C is incorrect because while some discretionary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, the ultimate legal question of whether a JMOL motion should have been granted is reviewed de novo, although the underlying review of the jury's verdict uses the reasonable jury standard. D is incorrect because the 'clearly erroneous' standard applies to a judge's findings of fact in a bench trial, not a jury's findings.

Question 3

In a commercial litigation, a party repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders, despite warnings from the magistrate judge. The opposing party moved for sanctions. The district court judge, after reviewing the record of discovery abuses, entered a default judgment against the non-compliant party as a sanction under FRCP 37. The sanctioned party appealed the entry of default judgment.

How will the court of appeals review the district court's decision to impose a default judgment as a discovery sanction? Select one.

De novo, because a default judgment is a dispositive ruling that resolves the case on the merits.
Abuse of discretion, because the choice of sanction for discovery violations is committed to the trial court's discretion. (correct answer)
Clearly erroneous, as the appellate court must review the factual record of the discovery abuses.
Gross negligence, to determine if the sanctioned party's conduct was sufficiently culpable to warrant the sanction.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. A trial court's imposition of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 is reviewed for abuse of discretion. While default judgment is a severe sanction, the choice of an appropriate sanction is within the discretion of the district court. The appellate court will only reverse if the sanction was not 'just' or was based on an erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. A is incorrect because even though the sanction is dispositive, the decision to impose it is a discretionary one related to the management of the judicial process. C is incorrect because while the factual findings underlying the sanction are reviewed for clear error, the ultimate choice of sanction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. D describes a type of conduct, not a standard of appellate review.

Question 4

You represent a group of plaintiffs who seek to certify a class action against a manufacturer. After extensive briefing and a hearing, the district court issued an order denying class certification. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the 'predominance' requirement of FRCP 23(b)(3), finding that individual issues would overwhelm common ones. You have filed a petition to appeal the interlocutory order under FRCP 23(f).

Assuming the appellate court grants the petition to hear the appeal, what standard of review will it apply to the district court's denial of class certification? Select one.

Abuse of discretion, because the district court is given broad discretion in managing class actions. (correct answer)
De novo, because class certification involves the interpretation of FRCP 23.
Clearly erroneous, because the predominance inquiry is a fact-intensive determination.
Commonality, to determine if there are questions of law or fact common to the class.

Explanation: When you encounter questions about appellate review of class certification decisions, focus on the type of decision being reviewed rather than the specific legal standard at issue. The Supreme Court has established that appellate courts review district court decisions on class certification under an abuse of discretion standard. This makes sense because class certification involves complex case management decisions where the trial judge, who is closest to the litigation, must weigh multiple factors and make practical determinations about how the case should proceed. The district court has superior knowledge of the case's nuances, the parties involved, and the practical implications of certification. Let's examine why the other options miss the mark. Option B incorrectly suggests de novo review applies because Rule 23 interpretation is involved. While pure questions of law receive de novo review, class certification decisions involve applying legal standards to specific factual circumstances, which courts treat as discretionary determinations. Option C proposes clearly erroneous review because predominance is fact-intensive. However, this misunderstands that even fact-intensive inquiries can be reviewed for abuse of discretion when they're part of a broader discretionary determination. Option D completely misses the question by discussing the commonality requirement itself rather than the standard of review. Remember this key distinction: appellate standards of review depend on the nature of the decision being appealed, not the complexity or type of legal standard the lower court applied. Class certification decisions consistently receive abuse of discretion review because they're inherently discretionary case management calls.

Question 5

In a diversity action, a defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was barred by claim preclusion (res judicata) due to a prior final judgment in a state court action between the same parties. The federal district court applied the state's law on preclusion, analyzed the prior judgment, and granted summary judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.

What standard of review will the appellate court apply to the district court's ruling on claim preclusion? Select one.

De novo, because the application of claim preclusion is a question of law. (correct answer)
Abuse of discretion, because claim preclusion is an affirmative defense that the court may choose to consider.
Full faith and credit, which is the constitutional requirement, not the standard of appellate review.
Clearly erroneous, because the court had to make factual determinations about the prior lawsuit.

Explanation: When you encounter questions about appellate review standards, focus on whether the lower court's decision involved primarily legal analysis, factual findings, or discretionary judgment calls. Claim preclusion (res judicata) determinations are fundamentally questions of law. While a court may need to examine facts about the prior lawsuit, the ultimate question—whether the legal elements of claim preclusion are satisfied—requires legal analysis and interpretation. Courts must determine whether there was (1) a final judgment on the merits, (2) between the same parties, (3) involving the same claim. These determinations involve applying legal standards to established facts, making this a legal question subject to de novo (fresh) appellate review. Looking at the wrong answers: (B) incorrectly treats claim preclusion as discretionary when it's actually a mandatory bar if the elements are met—courts don't "choose" whether to apply it. (C) confuses constitutional principles with appellate review standards; while full faith and credit may require recognizing the prior state judgment, it doesn't describe how an appellate court reviews the lower court's preclusion analysis. (D) focuses too heavily on factual determinations, but even when factual findings about the prior case are involved, the legal conclusion about whether preclusion applies is the dominant issue being reviewed. Study tip: Remember the basic appellate review framework: legal questions get de novo review, factual findings get clearly erroneous review, and discretionary decisions get abuse of discretion review. Preclusion analysis, like most legal standards, falls into the first category even when it requires examining underlying facts.

Question 6

A party in a civil case in federal court served a request for production of documents. The opposing party objected to several requests on the basis of attorney-client privilege. The first party filed a motion to compel production. The magistrate judge reviewed the disputed documents in camera and issued an order compelling production of some documents but upholding the privilege as to others. The party whose documents were ordered produced appealed the magistrate's order to the district court judge.

What standard of review should the district court judge apply when reviewing the magistrate judge's order on the non-dispositive discovery motion? Select one.

Clearly erroneous or contrary to law, because this is the standard for reviewing a magistrate's order on a non-dispositive matter. (correct answer)
De novo, because the existence of privilege is a question of law.
Abuse of discretion, as discovery matters are generally left to the discretion of the presiding judge.
Substantial evidence, to determine if the magistrate's decision was supported by the evidence.

Explanation: When you encounter questions about reviewing magistrate judges' decisions in federal court, you need to understand that different types of orders receive different standards of review based on whether they're "dispositive" or "non-dispositive" matters. Discovery motions, including motions to compel document production, are considered non-dispositive matters under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). This means they don't resolve the case or significantly affect its outcome. For non-dispositive matters, the district court judge must review the magistrate's order under the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard. This is a deferential standard that allows the magistrate's decision to stand unless it's based on an erroneous finding of fact or misapplies the law. Answer A correctly identifies this standard for non-dispositive matters. Answer B is wrong because while privilege questions involve legal determinations, the standard of review is still governed by the dispositive/non-dispositive distinction, not the law/fact characterization. Answer C incorrectly applies the abuse of discretion standard, which is used when reviewing discovery decisions on direct appeal, not when a district judge reviews a magistrate's order. Answer D misapplies the substantial evidence standard, which is typically used in administrative law contexts, not for reviewing magistrate decisions. Remember this key distinction: non-dispositive magistrate orders get "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" review, while dispositive matters (like summary judgment recommendations) get de novo review. The nature of the underlying legal issue doesn't change this fundamental rule about magistrate review standards.

Question 7

In reviewing the jury's verdict, what standard will the appellate court apply? Select one.

It will review the evidence de novo to determine which expert was more credible.
It will affirm the verdict if there was a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to have reached its conclusion. (correct answer)
It will determine if the trial court's decision to deny the JMOL motion was an abuse of discretion.
It will reverse the verdict if it finds that the jury's conclusion on causation was clearly erroneous.

Question 8

Your client was the plaintiff in a lengthy civil trial. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. You filed a timely motion for a new trial, arguing that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. The trial judge, who presided over the entire trial and heard all the testimony, reviewed your motion and the trial record before issuing a written order denying the motion. You are now preparing an appeal based on the denial of the new trial motion.

What is the appropriate standard for the appellate court to apply in reviewing the trial judge's denial of your client's motion for a new trial? Select one.

De novo, because the motion requires a legal determination of whether the jury's verdict was reasonable.
Abuse of discretion, because the trial judge is in the best position to determine if a verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. (correct answer)
Clearly erroneous, to determine if the judge's factual assessment of the jury's verdict was mistaken.
Substantial evidence, to determine if the jury's verdict itself was supportable by the record.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. A trial court's ruling on a motion for a new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. This is because the trial judge, having observed the witnesses and the entire trial, is in a unique position to assess whether the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence or if a miscarriage of justice occurred. The appellate court gives significant deference to this decision. A is incorrect because a de novo standard does not afford the required deference. C is incorrect because 'clearly erroneous' applies to the judge's own findings of fact, not the review of a discretionary decision about a jury's verdict. D is incorrect because the 'substantial evidence' (or 'reasonable jury') standard is for reviewing the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law, which is a higher bar for the moving party than a motion for a new trial.

Question 9

What is the appropriate standard for the appellate court to apply in reviewing the trial judge's denial of your client's motion for a new trial? Select one.

De novo, because the motion requires a legal determination of whether the jury's verdict was reasonable.
Abuse of discretion, because the trial judge is in the best position to determine if a verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. (correct answer)
Clearly erroneous, to determine if the judge's factual assessment of the jury's verdict was mistaken.
Substantial evidence, to determine if the jury's verdict itself was supportable by the record.

Question 10

You are representing a client in a boundary dispute with a neighbor. The case was tried in a bench trial in federal district court. The judge heard testimony from land surveyors for both sides and reviewed historical deeds and photographs. In a written opinion, the judge made detailed findings of fact, concluding that a fence had been in its current location for over 20 years. Based on these findings, the judge applied state law and entered judgment for the neighbor on the basis of adverse possession. Your client believes the judge gave too much weight to the neighbor's surveyor.

On appeal, what standard of review will apply to the trial judge's factual finding regarding the fence's location? Select one.

De novo, because the ultimate judgment was a conclusion of law.
Abuse of discretion, because the judge exercised discretion in weighing conflicting evidence.
Clearly erroneous, because the finding was a question of fact decided by the judge after a bench trial. (correct answer)
Preponderance of the evidence, because this was the burden of proof at the trial level.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6), an appellate court must not set aside a trial court's findings of fact in a bench trial unless they are 'clearly erroneous.' The appellate court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the witnesses' credibility. This is a highly deferential standard. A is incorrect because while the judge's ultimate conclusion of law (the application of adverse possession doctrine) would be reviewed de novo, the specific factual finding about the fence is reviewed for clear error. B is incorrect; abuse of discretion is the standard for decisions left to the trial court's choice, such as discovery or evidentiary rulings, not for findings of fact. D is incorrect because 'preponderance of the evidence' is the standard of proof at the trial level, not the standard of review on appeal.

Question 11

On appeal, what standard of review will apply to the trial judge's factual finding regarding the fence's location? Select one.

De novo, because the ultimate judgment was a conclusion of law.
Abuse of discretion, because the judge exercised discretion in weighing conflicting evidence.
Clearly erroneous, because the finding was a question of fact decided by the judge after a bench trial. (correct answer)
Preponderance of the evidence, because this was the burden of proof at the trial level.

Question 12

A federal district court judge in one state dismissed a lawsuit filed by a plaintiff, finding that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendant. The dismissal was based on the court's analysis of the state's long-arm statute and the constitutional requirements of due process, as applied to a set of facts established through affidavits and discovery materials. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal.

How will the court of appeals review the district court's decision to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction? Select one.

Abuse of discretion, because the district court has discretion over pre-trial matters.
Clearly erroneous, because the decision was based on facts presented in affidavits and discovery.
De novo, because the existence of personal jurisdiction is a question of law. (correct answer)
Minimum contacts, as the court must determine if the defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Whether personal jurisdiction exists is a question of law, and therefore a district court's dismissal on that basis is reviewed de novo. While the district court may have made underlying factual findings (which would be reviewed for clear error), the ultimate legal conclusion about whether those facts support jurisdiction is reviewed without deference. A is incorrect because this is not considered a discretionary ruling. B is incorrect because 'clearly erroneous' applies only to the underlying factual determinations, not the final legal conclusion. D is incorrect because 'minimum contacts' is the constitutional test for personal jurisdiction, not the appellate standard of review for the lower court's decision.

Question 13

A plaintiff sued her former employer for discrimination and won at trial. The plaintiff's attorney then filed a motion for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to a fee-shifting statute. The attorney submitted detailed billing records. The district court, after reviewing the records and the applicable law, awarded the plaintiff $150,000 in attorney's fees, which was less than the amount requested. The plaintiff appealed, arguing the award was too low.

What standard will the appellate court apply in reviewing the amount of the attorney's fee award? Select one.

De novo, because the entitlement to fees is based on a statute, which is a question of law.
Clearly erroneous, because the court made factual findings about the reasonableness of the hours billed.
Abuse of discretion, because the determination of a reasonable fee award is left to the trial court's discretion. (correct answer)
Lodestar method, as the court must determine if the district court correctly calculated the reasonable hours and rates.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The amount of an attorney's fee award is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The district court has wide discretion in this area because it is more familiar with the litigation and the work performed by the attorneys. While the appellate court might review the legal question of entitlement to fees de novo (as suggested in A), the calculation of the amount of a reasonable fee is a discretionary decision. B is incorrect because 'clearly erroneous' applies to the underlying factual findings (e.g., how many hours were actually worked), but the overall reasonableness determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion. D is incorrect because the 'lodestar method' is a methodology for calculating fees used by the trial court, not the standard of review used by the appellate court.

Question 14

A ship owner sued an insurance company in federal court under admiralty jurisdiction. The case was dismissed by the district court based on a forum-selection clause in the insurance contract that required all disputes to be litigated in London. The ship owner appealed, arguing that the district court misapplied the law and should have retained the case.

What standard of review will the appellate court apply to the district court's dismissal based on a forum-selection clause? Select one.

De novo, because the interpretation and enforcement of a contract clause is a question of law. (correct answer)
Clearly erroneous, to review the factual finding that the clause was part of the parties' agreement.
Forum non conveniens, because the court is determining the most appropriate forum for the litigation.
Abuse of discretion, because the decision involves the court's management of its own jurisdiction in light of a contractual agreement.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The Supreme Court in Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court clarified the procedural mechanism for enforcing a forum-selection clause. While a dismissal for forum non conveniens is reviewed for abuse of discretion, the enforcement of a valid forum-selection clause through a motion to transfer or dismiss is not a matter of discretion. The interpretation of the clause and its legal effect are questions of law, which are reviewed de novo. B is incorrect because the appeal is on the legal effect of the clause, not just the factual question of its inclusion. C confuses the related doctrine of forum non conveniens with the standard of review. D is incorrect as the Supreme Court has moved away from treating this as a purely discretionary decision.

Question 15

What standard of review will the appellate court apply to the district court's dismissal based on a forum-selection clause? Select one.

De novo, because the interpretation and enforcement of a contract clause is a question of law. (correct answer)
Clearly erroneous, to review the factual finding that the clause was part of the parties' agreement.
Forum non conveniens, because the court is determining the most appropriate forum for the litigation.
Abuse of discretion, because the decision involves the court's management of its own jurisdiction in light of a contractual agreement.

Question 16

A plaintiff sued a corporation in federal court for breach of a complex services contract. After discovery, the corporation moved for summary judgment. It argued that the plain language of the contract's termination clause unambiguously permitted its actions. The district court agreed, finding no genuine dispute of material fact and interpreting the contract as a matter of law in the corporation's favor. The plaintiff immediately appealed the grant of summary judgment.

What standard of review will the appellate court apply to the district court's interpretation of the contract and its subsequent grant of summary judgment? Select one.

Abuse of discretion, because the trial court has broad discretion in managing its docket through dispositive motions.
De novo, because the grant of summary judgment and the interpretation of an unambiguous contract are both considered questions of law. (correct answer)
Clearly erroneous, because the appellate court must defer to the trial court's findings unless it is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
Substantial evidence, because the appellate court must determine if substantial evidence in the record supports the trial court's conclusion.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. An appellate court reviews a trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo. This is because summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This determination is a question of law. Similarly, the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law, also subject to de novo review. A is incorrect because abuse of discretion is the standard for discretionary rulings, not for summary judgment. C is incorrect because the 'clearly erroneous' standard applies to a judge's findings of fact after a bench trial, not to legal rulings on summary judgment. D is incorrect because the 'substantial evidence' standard (or 'reasonable jury' standard) is used to review a jury's verdict, not a judge's pre-trial ruling on a matter of law.

Question 17

A city passed an ordinance restricting public demonstrations. A protest group sued the city in federal court, claiming the ordinance violated the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for the city, concluding as a matter of law that the ordinance was a valid time, place, and manner restriction. The protest group appealed.

What standard of review will the appellate court apply to the district court's constitutional ruling? Select one.

Rational basis, because the ordinance relates to public safety.
De novo, because the interpretation of the Constitution is a pure question of law. (correct answer)
Clearly erroneous, because the district court made findings based on the undisputed facts submitted.
Abuse of discretion, because the district court must balance constitutional rights with public order.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. Questions of law, including constitutional questions, are always reviewed de novo by an appellate court. The court will examine the issue fresh, without any deference to the lower court's legal analysis. A is incorrect because 'rational basis' is a standard of review for the constitutionality of a law itself (substantive due process/equal protection), not the standard an appellate court uses to review a lower court's decision. C is incorrect because the 'clearly erroneous' standard is for reviewing judicial findings of fact, not conclusions of law. D is incorrect because 'abuse of discretion' is used for reviewing discretionary decisions by the trial court, not its rulings on pure questions of law like constitutional interpretation.

Question 18

A software startup sued a large competitor for copyright infringement, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the competitor from launching a rival product. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and weighed the four factors for a preliminary injunction: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest. The court found the startup was unlikely to succeed on the merits and denied the injunction. The startup filed an immediate interlocutory appeal.

What is the overall standard of review the court of appeals will apply to the district court's decision to deny the preliminary injunction? Select one.

De novo, because an injunction is an extraordinary remedy that requires independent appellate review.
Clearly erroneous, because the decision was based on the court's assessment of evidence presented at the hearing.
Likelihood of success, as this is the most critical factor in the analysis for granting preliminary relief.
Abuse of discretion, because the granting or denial of a preliminary injunction is a discretionary equitable remedy. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. The ultimate decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. This standard reflects the equitable and discretionary nature of the remedy. However, the review is multi-faceted: the appellate court reviews the district court's underlying findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. But the overall 'umbrella' standard for the final decision is abuse of discretion. A is incorrect because the review is not fully independent. B is incorrect because 'clearly erroneous' only applies to the factual findings, not the overall decision. C is incorrect because 'likelihood of success' is one of the factors the trial court considers, not the standard of appellate review.

Question 19

A consumer filed a class action lawsuit against a national bank. The bank filed a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6), arguing that the consumer's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The bank contended that, even accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, no legal duty was breached. The district court agreed with the bank's legal analysis and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The consumer appealed.

What standard will the appellate court apply when reviewing the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim? Select one.

Abuse of discretion, as the decision to dismiss a case at the pleading stage is a case management function.
Clearly erroneous, to determine if the district court misread the factual allegations in the complaint.
De novo, because the sufficiency of a complaint to state a claim is a question of law. (correct answer)
Plausibility, to determine if the complaint's factual allegations state a plausible claim for relief.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. A district court's decision to grant a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo. The appellate court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and determine for itself whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief. This is a pure question of law, so no deference is given to the trial court's conclusion. A is incorrect because this is not considered a discretionary case management decision. B is incorrect because the 'clearly erroneous' standard is for findings of fact after a trial, not for assessing the legal sufficiency of pleadings. D is incorrect because the 'plausibility' standard (Twombly/Iqbal) is the test applied by both the district court and the appellate court, but it is not the standard of review that the appellate court applies to the district court's decision. The standard of review is de novo.

Question 20

Assuming the appellate court grants the petition to hear the appeal, what standard of review will it apply to the district court's denial of class certification? Select one.

Abuse of discretion, because the district court is given broad discretion in managing class actions. (correct answer)
De novo, because class certification involves the interpretation of FRCP 23.
Clearly erroneous, because the predominance inquiry is a fact-intensive determination.
Commonality, to determine if there are questions of law or fact common to the class.