De novo review is used when a court is reviewing a decision of a lower court that involves a question of law. This means that the court will review the record and make its own independent determination of the law, without giving any deference to the lower court's decision.

Substantial evidence review is used when a court is reviewing a decision of a lower court that involves a question of fact. This means that the court will uphold the lower court's decision if there is substantial evidence in the record to support it.

Abuse of discretion review is used when a court is reviewing a decision of an administrative agency. This means that the court will uphold the agency's decision unless it finds that the agency abused its discretion.

De novo review is a more limited form of review than plenary review. This is because de novo review only allows the court to review the record and make its own independent determination of the law, without giving any deference to the lower court's decision. Plenary review, on the other hand, allows the court to review the entire record and make its own independent determination of both the law and the facts.

Abuse of discretion review is more deferential to the lower court's decision than substantial evidence review. This is because abuse of discretion review only allows the court to overturn the lower court's decision if it finds that the lower court abused its discretion. Substantial evidence review, on the other hand, allows the court to overturn the lower court's decision if it finds that there is not substantial evidence in the record to support it.

De novo review is used when a court is reviewing a decision of a lower court that involves a question of law. This means that the court will review the record and make its own independent determination of the law, without giving any deference to the lower court's decision.

Plenary review is used when a court is reviewing a decision of a lower court that involves a question of law. This means that the court will review the entire record and make its own independent determination of both the law and the facts.

Abuse of discretion review is used when a court is reviewing a decision of an administrative agency. This means that the court will uphold the agency's decision unless it finds that the agency abused its discretion.

Substantial evidence review is used when a court is reviewing a decision of a lower court that involves a question of fact. This means that the court will uphold the lower court's decision if there is substantial evidence in the record to support it.

The standard of review for a jury verdict is abuse of discretion review. This means that the court will uphold the jury's verdict unless it finds that the jury abused its discretion.

Clearly erroneous review is not a standard of review. It is a term used to describe a court's finding that a lower court's decision was not supported by the evidence.

The purpose of standards of review is to ensure that lower courts and administrative agencies are making correct decisions, following the law, and acting fairly.

The level of the court making the decision is not a factor that a court will consider when determining the appropriate standard of review.

Harmless error review is not a type of standard of review. It is a doctrine that allows a court to uphold a lower court's decision even if it finds that the lower court made an error, as long as the error was harmless.