appellate courts

An appellate court, commonly called a court of appeal(s), appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear a case upon appeal from a trial court or other lower tribunal. Appellate courts other than supreme courts are sometimes named as Intermediate appellate court.

In much of the world, court systems are divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and considers factual evidence and testimony relevant to the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court (or court of last resort) which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts, often on a discretionary basis. A particular court system's supreme court is its highest appellate court. Appellate courts nationwide can operate under varying rules.

Under its standard of review, an appellate court determines the extent of the deference it will give to the lower court's decision, based on whether the appeal is one of fact or of law. In certain civil law jurisdictions, especially those following the French legal system, a first-level appellate court has the power to second-guess the trial court's finding of facts and retry the facts of the case at that level under the principle of ''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 find facts, view the evidence firsthand, and observe witness testimony. When reviewing lower decisions on an issue of fact, courts of appeal generally look for clear error. However, the appellate court reviews issues of law (that is, without deference to the lower court's interpretation) and may reverse or modify the lower court's decision if the appellate court believes the lower court misapplied the facts or the law. If the appellate court finds a reversible error on an issue of fact, it cannot immediately retry and decide the issue itself. It can only reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court for a new trial or new findings on that issue. 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 only changed in cases of an " abuse of discretion". This standard tends to be even more deferential than the "clear error" standard.

Before hearing any case, the court must have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The authority of appellate courts to review the decisions of lower courts varies widely from one jurisdiction to another. In some areas, the appellate court has limited powers of review. Generally, an appellate court's judgment provides the final directive of the appeals courts as to the matter appealed, setting out with specificity the court's determination that the action appealed from should be affirmed, reversed, remanded or modified. Depending on the type of case and the decision below, appellate review primarily consists of: an entirely new hearing (a non trial de novo); a hearing where the appellate court gives deference to factual findings of the lower court; or review of particular legal rulings made by the lower court (an appeal on the record).

Bifurcation of civil and criminal appeals

While many appellate courts have jurisdiction over all cases decided by lower courts, some systems have appellate courts divided by the type of jurisdiction they exercise. Some jurisdictions have specialized appellate courts, such as the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which only hears appeals raised in criminal cases, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has general jurisdiction but derives most of its caseload from patent cases, on one hand, and appeals from the Court of Federal Claims on the other. In the United States, Alabama, Tennessee, and Oklahoma also have separate courts of criminal appeals. Texas and Oklahoma have the final determination of criminal cases vested in their respective courts of criminal appeals, while Alabama and Tennessee allow decisions of its court of criminal appeals to be finally appealed to the state supreme court.

Courts of criminal appeals

;Civilian
*Court of Criminal Appeal (England and Wales), abolished 1966
*Court of Criminal Appeal (Ireland), abolished 2014
* U.S. States:
**Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
**Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
**Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
** Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

;Military
* United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals
* Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (United States)
* Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals (United States)
* Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (United States)

Courts of civil appeals

* Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
* Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals

Appellate courts by country

Australia

The High Court has appellate jurisdiction over all other courts. Leave must be granted by the court, before the appeal matter is heard. The High Court is paramount to all federal courts. Further, it has an constitutionally entrenched general power of appeal from the Supreme Courts of the States and Territories.. Appeals to the High Court are by special leave only, which is generally only granted in cases of public importance, matters involving the interpretation of the Commonwealth Constitution, or where the law has been inconsistently applied across the States and Territories. Therefore, in the vast majority of cases, the appellate divisions of the Supreme Courts of each State and Territory and the Federal Court are the final courts of appeal.

New Zealand

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand, located in Wellington, is New Zealand's principal intermediate appellate court. In practice, most appeals are resolved at this intermediate appellate level, rather than in the Supreme Court.

Philippines

The Court of Appeals of the Philippines is the principal intermediate appellate court of that country. The Court of Appeals is primarily found in Manila, with three divisions each in Cebu City and Cagayan de Oro. Other appellate courts include the Sandiganbayan for cases involving graft and corruption, and the Court of Tax Appeals for cases involving tax. Appeals from all three appellate courts are to the Supreme Court.

Sri Lanka

The Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka, located in Colombo, is the second senior court in the Sri Lankan legal system.

United Kingdom

United States

In the United States, both state and federal appellate courts are usually restricted to examining whether the lower court made the correct legal determinations, rather than hearing direct evidence and determining what the facts of the case were. Furthermore, U.S. appellate courts are usually restricted to hearing appeals based on matters that were 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 that is raised for the first time in the appeal.

In most U.S. states, and in U.S. federal courts, parties before the court are allowed one appeal as of right. This means that a party who is unsatisfied with the outcome of a trial may bring an appeal to contest that outcome. However, appeals may be costly, and the appellate court must find an error on the part of the court below that justifies upsetting the verdict. Therefore, only a small proportion of trial court decisions result in appeals. Some courts, particularly supreme courts, have the power of discretionary review, meaning that they can decide whether they will hear an appeal brought in a particular case.

Nomenclature

Many U.S. jurisdictions title their appellate court a ''court of appeal'' or ''court of appeals''. Both terms are used in the United States, but the plural form is more common in American English, while in contrast, British English uses only the singular form. The correct form is whichever is the statutorily prescribed or customary form for a particular court and particular jurisdiction; in other words, one should never write "court of appeal" when the court at issue clearly prefers to be called a "court of appeals", and vice versa.

Historically, certain jurisdictions have titled their appellate court a ''court of errors'' (or ''court of errors and appeals''), on the premise that it was intended to correct errors made by lower courts. Examples of such courts include the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals (which existed from 1844 to 1947), the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors (which has been renamed the Connecticut Supreme Court), the Kentucky Court of Errors (renamed the Kentucky Supreme Court), and the Mississippi High Court of Errors and Appeals (since renamed the Supreme Court of Mississippi). 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. However, the New York Court of Appeals is the highest appellate court in New York. The New York Supreme Court is a trial court of general jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Maryland was known as the Court of Appeals, and the Appellate Court of Maryland was known as the Court of Special Appeals, until a 2022 constitutional amendment changed their names. Depending on the system, certain courts may serve as both trial courts and appellate courts, hearing appeals of decisions made by courts with more limited jurisdiction.

See also

* Court of Criminal Appeal (disambiguation)
* Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
* High Court (Hong Kong)
* Court of Appeal (England and Wales)
* Court of cassation

References

Citations

Sources

* Lax, Jeffrey R. "Constructing Legal Rules on Appellate Courts." American Political Science Review 101.3 (2007): 591–604. Sociological Abstracts; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts. Web. 29 May 2012.
*James D Hopkins, "The Role of an Intermediate Appellate Court" (1974 to 1975) 41 Brook L Rev 45
HeinOnline
*W Warren H Binford, Preston C Greene, Maria C Schmidlkofer, Robert M Wilsey and Hillary A Taylor, "Seeking Best Practices among Intermediate Courts of Appeal: A Nascent Journey" (2007) 9 The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 37 (Article 4) (No 1, Spring 2007
Bowen Law Repository

*Calvert Magruder, "The Trials and Tribulations of an Intermediate Appellate Court" (1958) 44 Cornell Law Quarterly 1 (No 1, Fall 1958
Cornell
*Laurence C Harmon and Gregory A Lang, "A Needs Analysis of an Intermediate Appellate Court" (1981) 6 or 7 William Mitchell Law Review 51 (article 7) (No 1
Mitchell Hamline
*McHugh, "Law Making in an Intermediate Appellate Court: The New South Wales Court of Appeal" (1987) 11 The Sydney Law Review 183 (No 2, March 1987
AustLII
*Alan B Handler, "Justice at the Intermediate Appellate Level: The New Jersey Appellate Division" (1979) 10 Seton Hall Law Review 5
Seton Hall University
*Daryl R Fair, "State Intermediate Appellate Courts: An Introduction" (1971) 24 Political Research Quarterly 415 (No 3, September 1971
SAGE journals
*Richard B Hoffman and Barry Mahoney, "Managing caseflow in State Intermediate Appellate Courts: What Mechanisms, Practices, and Procedures can work to reduce Delay?" (2002) 35 Indiana Law Review 46
McKinney
*Kevin M Scott, "Understanding Judicial Hierarchy: Reversals and the Behavior of Intermediate Appellate Judges" (2006) 40 Law & Society Review 163 (No 1, March 2006
JSTOR
*John W Poulos and Bruce D Varner, "Review of Intermediate Appellate Court Decisions in California" (1963) 15 Hastings Law Journal 11 (No 1
UC Hastings
* Douglas M. Fasciale, "A Case Study Analyzing How Trial Judge Experience Shapes Intermediate Appellate Review of Discretionary Determinations," (2023) Seton Hall Law Review: Vol. 53 : Iss. 4 , Article 1. Available at
Seton Hall University

{{DEFAULTSORT:Court of Appeals
Courts by type
Appellate courts
Jurisdiction