Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction over Facts

Here’s a question.  Article III, Section Two of the Constitution states that “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact . . . .” The power of factual review was given largely because in maritime cases factual disputes were often critical and resolved on appeal (at least that’s what people said in the 1780s).

What I’m wondering is when was the last time the Justices formally reversed or vacated an opinion because its factual findings were clearly erroneous?  This probably happened with some regularity before certiorari jurisdiction was firmly established in the 1920s, but I’m not sure.  Any thoughts?

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. MDubs says:

    It happened in Easley v. Cromarite, 532 U.S. 234 (2001), which came to the Court from a three-judge District Court decision.

  2. A related, and interesting article about the Supreme Court and facts:

  3. Joe says:

    Is NYT v. Sullivan an example of it happening?

  4. Shag from Brookline says:

    Is there a suggestion that “both as to law and fact” permits a trial de novo with evidence presented to the Court beyond what was presented in the trial court? Or does “fact” relate to what the evidence permits under applicable law to constitute a relevant fact?