Q: Appeal review is not new trial. What factors court of appeals considers when reviews evidence under de novo standard?

A: You're absolutely correct that an appeal review is not a new trial. Appellate courts have a different function than trial courts. They focus on reviewing the legal process and decisions made in the lower court, not on re-examining the facts of the case. De Novo Standard of Review means they are looking at the issue fresh, without giving any deference to the trial court's decision. The court focuses strictly on the record before it, evaluating whether the trial court correctly applied the law to the facts, rather than reassessing witness credibility or reweighing evidence. Here are the factors they consider: (1) the court independently interprets the relevant laws and statutes, (2) it determines whether the trial court correctly applied the law to the established facts. (3) it may review whether the trial court properly admitted or excluded evidence, but usually only if there was a clear error of law.

When reviewing an informal agreement that led to a dismissal under the de novo standard, the appellate court will consider: (1) the agreement's language to determine its scope and intent, (2) assess whether a valid agreement was actually formed (offer, acceptance, consideration), (3) determine whether the parties adhered to the terms of the agreement, (4) consider whether enforcing the agreement would violate any public policy concerns, and (5) apply relevant legal principles, such as contract law, to the interpretation and enforcement of the agreement.

The de novo standard of appellate review is not codified in a specific statute but is a well-established principle in case law that has been developed and applied by courts over time.

A: Under California law, when conducting a de novo review, the Court of Appeal examines the record independently, giving no deference to the trial court's decision. This includes reviewing all evidence, declarations, and documents that were properly presented to the trial court.

The appellate court's analysis must focus on questions of law rather than factual disputes, as established by California Code of Civil Procedure § 906. When reviewing informal agreements that led to dismissal, the court considers whether the agreement meets basic contract requirements, whether there was a meeting of minds between parties, and if the terms were sufficiently definite to be enforced.

Key factors in the argument section should address whether the trial court correctly interpreted and applied the law, whether there were procedural errors affecting substantial rights, and if the agreement aligns with public policy. The court also evaluates whether the trial court's ruling was supported by substantial evidence in the record, though it won't reweigh evidence or make new factual findings since an appeal is not a new trial.