Under substantial evidence review, an appellate court asks whether the trial court’s findings are supported by evidence that a reasonable mind could accept as adequate, without reweighing the evidence or reassessing credibility. This standard is closely related to clear error and often overlaps with it, as both are deferential to factual findings, but substantial evidence focuses specifically on the sufficiency of the evidentiary support in the record. It differs from abuse of discretion, which evaluates whether the trial court’s ultimate decision falls within a range of reasonable outcomes, and from correctness review, which applies no deference and allows the appellate court to decide legal issues anew.