Appellate court

• 1. Defining Appellate Jurisdiction

  ›

  An appellate court, commonly called a court of appeal or second instance court, is any court empowered to hear a case upon appeal from a trial court. This definition distinguishes it sharply from the trial tribunal that initially hears cases and considers factual evidence. In much of the world, systems divide into at least three levels: the trial court, an intermediate appellate court, and a supreme court acting as the final resort. A particular court system's supreme court serves as its highest appellate court, often reviewing decisions on a discretionary basis. Appellate courts nationwide operate under varying rules regarding their authority to review lower court decisions. The authority varies widely from one jurisdiction to another, with some areas granting limited powers of review. Before hearing any case, the court must possess specific jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Generally, an appellate court's judgment provides the final directive as to whether the action appealed should be affirmed, reversed, remanded, or modified.

• 2. Standards Of Review Explained

  ›

  Under its standard of review, an appellate court determines the extent of deference given to the lower court's decision based on whether the appeal concerns fact or law. In certain civil law jurisdictions following the French legal system, a first-level appellate court has power to second-guess the trial court's finding of facts. These courts retry the facts of the case at that level under the principle known as double degré de juridiction. In common law jurisdictions, an appellate court reviewing an issue of fact ordinarily gives deference to the trial court's findings. It is the duty of trial judges or juries to view evidence firsthand and resolve disputes over what facts are supported by testimony. When reviewing lower decisions on an issue of fact, courts of appeal generally look for clear error. Transposed into civil law terminology, a second-instance proceeding in a common law court is not a retrial but a trial of the first-instance trial. The appellate court attempts to verify whether the trial was conducted according to correct legal principles without procedural irregularity. An appellate court reviews issues of law without deference to the lower court's interpretation and may reverse if it believes the lower court misapplied the law. If the appellate court finds a reversible error on an issue of law, it will reverse and remand with directions.

• 3. Civil Versus Common Law Systems

  ›

  In contrast to civil law systems, common law jurisdictions generally do not retry facts themselves based on the evidence already in the record. Instead, they can only reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court for a new trial or new findings on that issue. However, such further factfinding proceedings may then be subject to further appeals as to whether they were procedurally proper. An appellate court may also review the lower judge's discretionary decisions, such as whether the judge properly granted a new trial or disallowed evidence. The lower court's decision is allowed to stand unless it is an abuse of discretion. This standard tends to be even more deferential than the clear error standard. In most U.S. states and federal courts, parties are usually restricted to examining whether the lower court made the correct legal determinations rather than hearing direct evidence. Furthermore, U.S. appellate courts are usually restricted to hearing appeals based on matters originally brought up before the trial court. Hence, such an appellate court will not consider an appellant's argument if it is based on a theory raised for the first time in the appeal.

• 4. Specialized Criminal Courts

  ›

  While many appellate courts have jurisdiction over all cases decided by lower courts, some systems divide them by the type of jurisdiction exercised. Some jurisdictions have specialized appellate courts such as the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals which only hears appeals raised in criminal cases. The United States has several state-level examples including Alabama, Tennessee, and Oklahoma with separate courts of criminal appeals. Texas and Oklahoma have the final determination of criminal cases vested in their respective courts of criminal appeals. Alabama and Tennessee allow decisions of its court of criminal appeals to be finally appealed to the state supreme court. Historically, England and Wales had a Court of Criminal Appeal that was abolished in 1966. Ireland also maintained a Court of Criminal Appeal until it was abolished in 2014. Military justice systems maintain dedicated bodies like the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals or the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. These specialized courts handle specific caseloads distinct from general civil or mixed jurisdiction courts.

• 5. Global Judicial Hierarchies

  ›

  The High Court of Australia holds appellate jurisdiction over all other courts within that nation's federal system. Leave must be granted by the court before an appeal matter is heard, and this leave is generally only granted in cases of public importance. In New Zealand, the Court of Appeal located in Wellington serves as the principal intermediate appellate court where most appeals are resolved. The Philippines features a Court of Appeals primarily found in Manila with three divisions each in Cebu City and Cagayan de Oro. Scotland presents a unique structure where the Court of Session acts as the highest national court for civil cases while the High Court of Justiciary handles criminal matters. Judges in the Scottish Court of Session are termed Lords of Council and Session and appointed simultaneously to the College of Justice. Their number is fixed by statute currently at 37, though temporary judges assist with workload. Sri Lanka maintains a Court of Appeal located in Colombo as the second senior court in its legal system.

• 6. Nomenclature And Naming Conventions

  ›

  Many U.S. jurisdictions title their appellate court a court of appeal or court of appeals, with the plural form being more common in American English. British English uses only the singular form, making statutory prescription the deciding factor for correct usage. Historically, certain jurisdictions titled their appellate court a court of errors on the premise that it was intended to correct mistakes made by lower courts. Examples include the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals which existed from 1844 to 1947. The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors has been renamed simply the Connecticut Supreme Court. The Kentucky Court of Errors was also renamed the Kentucky Supreme Court. In some jurisdictions, a court able to hear appeals is known as an appellate division. The phrase court of appeals most often refers to intermediate appellate courts yet exceptions exist like the New York Court of Appeals which serves as the highest appellate court in that state. The Supreme Court of Maryland was known as the Court of Appeals until a 2022 constitutional amendment changed their names.