the issue the primary responsibility for doing so.” In addition, on the appropriate standard of review for a lower court’s application of law to facts, the court specifically enunciated: ”[T]he concerns of judicial administration will generally favor the appellate court, justifying de novo review. This is so because usually the application of law to fact will require the consideration of legal concepts and involve the exercise of judgment about the values underlying legal principles.” 16 . The cases from other jurisdictions that, focusing on the heavily factual nature of laches, apply the clearly erroneous standard of review are not necessarily to the contrary. See, e.g., Pullman-Standard, v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 288-90, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1790-91, 72 L.Ed.2d 66, L.Ed.2d 66, 79-81 (1982) (<HOLDING>); Jarrow Formulas Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc.,
holding that in general an agencys conclusion of law that presents mixed questions of fact and law is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard but questions concerning whether an agency has followed proper procedures or considered the appropriate factors in making its determination are questions of law which are reviewed de novo recognizing that mixed questions of fact and law that are essentially factual in nature should be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard as opposed to the generally administered de novo standard recognizing de novo standard of review holding that a finding of accommodation is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of review instead of under a de novo standard holding that even though the court does not usually apply the clearly erroneous standard to mixed questions of fact and law this standard is properly applied to the materiality issue