...Government has not clearly proved its charges. Certainly the court's findings are not clearly erroneous. "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when, although there...committed." United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 US 364, 395. The Government's contentions have been plausibly and earnestly argued but the record...

...those findings are not conclusive. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 US 364, 395 (1948). "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there...firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." » Id. In this particular case, however, the demeanor of the sole witness is not at issue. The court...

...in the course of the submission of the 1971 amendment, after reviewing the evidence ourselves we are "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed," 29 and we thus overturn that finding as clearly erroneous. The District Court erred as a matter of...

...derived from our cases. The foremost of these principles, as the Fourth Circuit itself recognized, is that "[a] finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although...committed." United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 US 364, 395 (1948). This standard plainly does not entitle a reviewing court to reverse the finding...

...395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 LEd. 746, a finding is clearly erroneous within the meaning of Rule 52(a) when, although there is evidence to support it, the...firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.' 3 Guided by the criteria referred to, considered with this interpretation of ‘clearly erroneous',...

...States in United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 US 364 (1948) said this occurred when: ". . . the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left...firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." 333 US at 395 (emphasis added). Building on that standard, in Anderson v. Bessemer Cit\. 470 US 564,...

...clearly erroneous. See Anderson, supra, 105 S.Ct. at 1511; Lindemann, 730 E2d at 1457, 221 USPQ at 485. “A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there...committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 US 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948). “This standard plainly does not entitle...

...aspect, the Tax Court's conclusion that the transactions in question lacked economic substance leaves us "with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 US 564, 573 (1985) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co.,...

...are too important to be ignored in this case. Our analysis ofthe [trial count's] findings leaves us with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” The appeals countfound that the trial count's reliance on statistical evidence as proof of disparate...

...erroneous,'" the Court had written in United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 US 364, 395 (1948), "when although there is evidence to support it, the...firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." In accordance with the implication in Baison, most state appellate courts have applied a clearly erroneous...