Appellate court

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Appellate courts exist to correct mistakes. The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, which operated from 1844 to 1947, made that mission explicit in its very name. Today most countries call these institutions courts of appeal, and nearly every legal system places at least one such court above the trial courts. But what exactly can an appellate court change, and what must it leave alone? Its authority over legal questions differs sharply from its authority over factual ones. Some jurisdictions divide their appellate courts into separate bodies for criminal and civil cases; others keep them unified. The architecture of appellate review looks quite different in Australia, Scotland, or the Philippines than it does in the United States. What these courts are permitted to do, and what they are deliberately prohibited from doing, turns out to be one of law's most carefully drawn distinctions.

• 2. Facts, Law, and Deference

  ›

  'Clear error' is the phrase that governs when a losing party challenges a trial court's reading of the evidence on appeal. Trial judges and juries occupy a unique position: they observe witnesses in person, hear testimony directly, and weigh the evidence firsthand. That access earns them considerable deference on questions of fact. An appellate court in a common law system will generally leave factual findings undisturbed unless it detects a clear error in them. Legal questions receive no such deference. When the dispute concerns how the law applies, the appellate court reviews the question de novo, meaning without any deference to the lower court's interpretation. If the lower court misapplied the law, the appellate court can reverse or modify the decision.

  The French legal tradition approaches this differently. Under the principle of double degré de juridiction, a first-level appellate court in civil law jurisdictions following the French model can retry the facts itself. That is a power that goes well beyond merely reviewing whether the trial court handled the case correctly. Common law systems explicitly reject this. The settled common law formulation holds that a second-instance proceeding is 'not a retrial of the parties' dispute but a trial of the first-instance trial.' The appellate court's role is to check whether the first hearing was conducted correctly, not to reach a different outcome on the merits.

  'Abuse of discretion' is the phrase that protects a judge's discretionary choices from being overturned on appeal. When a party contests such a call, the appellate court will intervene only if the judge committed an abuse of discretion. Examples of discretionary choices include whether to grant a new trial or exclude certain evidence. That standard is even more deferential than the clear error bar applied to factual findings. Once an appellate court rules on a legal question and no higher court promptly reverses that ruling, it becomes final for the parties. Courts call this outcome the law of the case.

• 3. Reversals, Remands, and Second Chances

  ›

  'Reverse and remand with directions' describes what happens when an appellate court identifies a legal mistake in the record. The case goes back to the lower court with specific instructions about what must be done. Factual errors work differently. When the problem lies with the trial court's finding of fact rather than its legal reasoning, the appellate court cannot substitute its own judgment. It can only send the case back for a new trial or new findings on the relevant issue. Those follow-up proceedings can generate fresh appeals, as each side can contest whether the remand was handled in accordance with the appellate court's instructions. When no reversible error exists, the appellate court affirms the decision below. It can also modify a decision rather than reversing it outright, depending on the type of case and the nature of the error.

  In most U.S. states and in federal courts, every losing litigant is guaranteed at least one appeal as of right. That means a party dissatisfied with the trial outcome can bring an appeal without first obtaining the court's permission. At higher levels, many courts exercise what is called discretionary review, choosing for themselves which cases to accept. Appeals can be expensive, and the appellate court must find a genuine error on the part of the lower tribunal before overturning its decision. Only a small proportion of trial court decisions are ever appealed at all. The Court of Criminal Appeal in England and Wales was abolished in 1966. The formal boundaries separating types of appellate courts have not always stayed where they were originally drawn.

• 4. When Courts Divide

  ›

  Texas and Oklahoma vest final authority over criminal cases not in their state supreme courts but in dedicated courts of criminal appeals. Alabama and Tennessee have also created separate criminal appeals courts. Unlike Texas and Oklahoma, they allow further appeal from the criminal appellate court to the state supreme court. Oklahoma and Alabama have established dedicated courts of civil appeals as well, adding another layer of subject-matter specialization.

  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit occupies a different kind of specialized niche. It holds general jurisdiction but draws most of its caseload from patent cases and from appeals originating in the Court of Federal Claims. Ireland's Court of Criminal Appeal operated within the common law tradition until it was abolished in 2014. The United States military maintains its own appellate tier. Separate courts of criminal appeals serve the Army, the Navy and Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, and the Air Force. Scotland's Court of Session, whose distinctive character traces to early judges who codified Scots law at a formative period, stands as a reminder that specialized appellate structures are far from new.

• 5. Around the World

  ›

  Edinburgh's Old Town is home to Parliament House, where Scotland's High Court of Justiciary sits when hearing criminal appeals. The court's dual role sets it apart. It functions as both a trial court and a court of appeal, an unusual combination for a supreme criminal court. In its appellate capacity, the court hears cases from the sheriff courts where solemn proceedings were used, the more serious category of Scottish criminal procedure. It also accepts referrals on points of law from the Sheriff Appeal Court. A sheriff's sentencing power is capped at five years; the High Court can impose a life sentence. Both courts can issue unlimited fines. When traveling on circuit, the High Court sits in dedicated buildings in Glasgow and Aberdeen. In smaller towns across Scotland, it uses the local sheriff court building.

  The Court of Session is Scotland's highest national civil court, hearing cases from any part of the country on non-criminal matters. Inner House proceedings have been streamed and recorded since 2023. The number of judges is fixed by statute at 37, with temporary judges also helping manage the caseload. The Lord President of the Court of Session leads the court and simultaneously heads the broader Scottish judiciary.

  Wellington, New Zealand is home to the Court of Appeal, the country's principal intermediate appellate court. Most appeals in New Zealand are resolved at this level and never reach the Supreme Court. Manila is the primary seat of the Court of Appeals of the Philippines, with three divisions each in Cebu City and Cagayan de Oro. Alongside it, the Sandiganbayan handles cases involving graft and corruption, while the Court of Tax Appeals addresses tax disputes. All three route their appeals to the Supreme Court. Sri Lanka's Court of Appeal, located in Colombo, is the second-highest court in that country's legal system.

  Australia's High Court sits at the top of the country's appellate hierarchy. Access requires special leave. The court grants it mainly for cases of genuine public importance, for questions about the Commonwealth Constitution, or to resolve inconsistency in how law is applied across states and territories. In most Australian cases, the appellate divisions of state and territory Supreme Courts, along with the Federal Court, serve as the effective final courts of appeal. The New York Court of Appeals is the highest appellate court in New York state, an exception to the general pattern in which courts with 'appeals' in the name are intermediate bodies.

• 6. The Name on the Door

  ›

  Maryland's highest court was called the Court of Appeals, and its intermediate counterpart was called the Court of Special Appeals. A 2022 constitutional amendment changed both names. The highest court became the Supreme Court of Maryland; the intermediate court became the Appellate Court of Maryland. The New York Supreme Court is a trial court of general jurisdiction, not an appellate body at all.

  Connecticut once called its highest court the Supreme Court of Errors. Kentucky had a Court of Errors, and Mississippi's equivalent was the High Court of Errors and Appeals. These courts were named on the premise that their purpose was to correct the mistakes of lower tribunals. Each has since been renamed, with the word 'errors' dropped in favor of 'supreme court.'

  British English and American English diverge on whether 'appeal' should be singular or plural in a court's formal name. The plural 'court of appeals' is standard in American usage; British English uses only the singular 'court of appeal.' The correct form in any given jurisdiction is whichever the court itself has officially adopted. Writing the wrong variant is treated as an error rather than a matter of style. In some jurisdictions, the body that hears appeals is called an appellate division rather than any form of court of appeal at all. Whether that label reflects a court's rank, a legislative choice, or a local tradition of legal naming varies by jurisdiction.