Discretionary jurisdiction

Last updated

Discretionary jurisdiction is a power that allows a court to engage in discretionary review. This power gives a court the authority to decide whether to hear a particular case brought before it. Typically, courts of last resort and intermediate courts in a state or country will have discretionary jurisdiction. [1] In contrast, the lower courts have no such power. For this reason, the lower courts must entertain any case properly filed, so long as the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the questions of law and in personam jurisdiction over the parties to the case. Customarily a court is granted the power by rule, statute, or constitutional provision. When a constitutional provision establishes the court's power, it will have more limitations on its screening process. The usual intent behind granting power through a constitutional provision is to maintain decisional uniformity. [1]

Contents

The power is coined as “discretionary” because a court may choose whether to accept or deny the petitioner’s appeal. [2] Moreover, discretionary jurisdiction is reactive rather than proactive. In other words, appellate courts do not search for cases review. Rather the court’s exercise of discretion is in response to a petitioner’s appeal of a lower court’s decision or in a motion for rehearing made to the intermediate [appellate] court. [3] Moreover, the highest [supreme] court's exercise of discretion is similar to the intermediate court, except that a supreme court will grant review at a much smaller percentage. For example, the United States Supreme Court merely grants review for five percent of it's requests for discretionary review.

Court Organization & Functions of the Court

Generally, there are three tiers of court at the state and federal levels: trial, intermediate (appellate) court, and court of last resort (supreme court). [4]

This structure creates a two-tier appellate system. The system affords a litigant one appeal as a matter of right after trial. The state's or district's intermediate court will review the first appeal, and after the intermediate court renders a decision, the supreme court will conduct any further review. [1] However, unlike the first appeal, a litigant is not entitled to a successive appeal by the supreme court. [1] Alternatively, in a few cases, those of great importance, such as capital cases, may be appealed directly to the highest court as a matter of right. [1]

At either tier, the court has two basic functions: "error correction" and "law declaring." [5]

The "error correction" function allows the appellate court to examine the record to determine whether the lower court applied existing law correctly according to the law and applicable procedure. [1] [5] The function affords a litigant a second set of eyes and promotes the court's interest in fairness. [5] It is the job of the lower court to adjudicate a matter in accordance with applicable legal standards. [6] However, often times a litigant will appeal, asserting that while the parties agree on the applicable law, they believe the trial court incorrectly interpreted the existing law or incorrectly applied the existing law to the facts. [6] Thus, if the lower court makes an error, the intermediate or highest court will reverse or remand (sends back to the lower court) the case. [5]

The "law declaring" function means that the appellate court rules on novel issues in a case, and under stare decisis, those rulings become new laws in themselves. [5] In those cases where: (1) the parties disagree vigorously if any existing legal rule even applies to the facts of the case; (2) the appellant may be deliberately trying to attack an established rule hoping the appellate court will overturn a prior decision and establish a new rule; (3) multiple intermediate appellate courts have ruled upon the question and the question is so perplexing that all the lower courts disagree with each other. [7]

An appellate court with discretionary jurisdiction can delegate error correction to lower courts while it focuses its limited resources on properly developing case law. [5] In the latter situation, the appellate court will focus on truly novel questions or revisiting older legal rules that are now clearly obsolete or unconstitutional. [5]

For example, the United States Supreme Court hears cases by a writ of certiorari, meaning that it calls appellants up to the court only if their case is important enough to merit the court's resources. The Supreme Court employs a "rule of four," meaning that four justices have to think the case is important enough to hear before the court will grant it a review. Many state supreme courts use a similar process to choose which cases they will hear.

The Selection Process

A judge's personal policy preferences and workload inadvertently drive the court's selection process or screening procedures. [3] Generally, a court will select cases involving broad and significant policy questions that have produced uncertainties amongst lower courts as the higher courts are concertedly looking to establish uniformity in the law. [3] Although uniformity is the court's primary responsibility, judges are more likely motivated by their policy goals. [3] They will vote to accept cases if the believe they can improve their court's policies or make a decision more favorable to their own policy preferences. [3]

The Florida Case Study

In Florida, discretionary jurisdiction is a power assigned to the State's highest court through a Constitutional Provision. Florida's discretion in exercising power is likely the most limited of the States courts that employ the discretionary power jurisdiction. [1] While the provision does not expressly state "discretionary jurisdiction," the categorical nature of the language restricts the use of the court's discretion. [1] Like other federal and state court systems, Florida has a two-tier appellate system. A litigant can take two pathways to discretionary review: (1) directly petitioning the State's supreme court or (2) permission from the district court of appeal. [1]

There are four instances where the State's supreme court can exercise discretion when to review: (1) district court decisions that expressly declare a valid state statute--even where the validity of the statute is not the issue before the court; (2) District Court decisions involving the interpretation of [a provision or term] of federal constitution; (3) when the district court's decision directly conflicts with the another district's or supreme court ruling; (4) and district court decisions directly affecting the duties, powers, validity, formation, termination or regulation of constitutional or state officers. [7]

Florida's Supreme Court exercising discretionary Jurisdiction

When a litigant is petitioning the court for discretionary review, the litigant must file a notice in the district court w/in 30 days of "a notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction. Wells v. State, 132 So. 3d 1110 (2014). This petitioner must file a notice to invoke within 10 days of filing the notice petitioner must submit a jurisdictional brief to the Supreme Court. [7] If subject to the State's Supreme Court's jurisdiction. a panel of five justices, one of whom oversees the preparation of a memorandum analyzing whether there is a basis for the court’s exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, will review the case. [7] If four justices agree on a jurisdictional disposition of the case--based on the four instances listed above--the parties are notified of the court’s decision, and the case proceeds accordingly. [7]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Appellate procedure in the United States</span> National rules of court appeals

United States appellate procedure involves the rules and regulations for filing appeals in state courts and federal courts. The nature of an appeal can vary greatly depending on the type of case and the rules of the court in the jurisdiction where the case was prosecuted. There are many types of standard of review for appeals, such as de novo and abuse of discretion. However, most appeals begin when a party files a petition for review to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Appellate court</span> Court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal

A court of appeals, also called a court of appeal, appellate court, appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In much of the world, court systems are divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and reviews evidence and testimony to determine the facts of the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court 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.

Jurisdiction is the legal term for the legal authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice. In federations like the United States, areas of jurisdiction apply to local, state, and federal levels.

A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case relevant to a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Common-law legal systems often view precedent as binding or persuasive, while civil law systems do not. Common-law systems aim for similar facts to yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observing precedent when making decisions is the mechanism to achieve that goal. Common-law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law and subordinate legislation in UK parlance – or regulatory law. The principle by which judges are bound to precedents is known as stare decisis.

In the United States, a state supreme court is the highest court in the state judiciary of a U.S. state. On matters of state law, the judgment of a state supreme court is considered final and binding in both state and federal courts.

In the United States, a state court has jurisdiction over disputes with some connection to a U.S. state. State courts handle the vast majority of civil and criminal cases in the United States; the United States federal courts are far smaller in terms of both personnel and caseload, and handle different types of cases.

Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do, and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Cassation (France)</span> Highest judicial court in France

The Court of Cassation is one of the four courts of last resort in France. It has jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters triable in the judicial system; it is the supreme court of appeal in these cases. It has jurisdiction to review the law, as well as to certify questions of law, to determine miscarriages of justice. The Court is located in the Palace of Justice in the 1st arrondissement of Paris.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trial court</span> Type of court in which trials take place

A trial court or court of first instance is a court having original jurisdiction, in which trials take place. Appeals from the decisions of trial courts are usually made by higher courts with the power of appellate review. Most appellate courts do not have the authority to hear testimony or take evidence, but instead rule solely on matters of law.

A writ of coram nobis is a legal order allowing a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error that did not appear in the records of the original judgment's proceedings and that would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced. The term coram nobis is Latin for "before us" and the meaning of its full form, quae coram nobis resident, is "which [things] remain in our presence". The writ of coram nobis originated in the courts of common law in the English legal system during the sixteenth century.

Discretionary review is the authority appellate courts have to decide which appeals they will consider from among the cases submitted to them. This offers the judiciary a filter on what types of cases are appealed, because judges have to consider in advance which cases will be accepted. The appeals court will then be able to decide substantive cases with the lowest opportunity cost. The opposite of discretionary review is any review mandated by statute, which guides appellate courts about what they can and cannot do during the review process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Florida District Courts of Appeal</span> Intermediate appellate courts of Florida

The district courts of appeal (DCAs) are the intermediate appellate courts of the Florida state court system. There are currently six DCAs:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Florida</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Florida

The Supreme Court of Florida is the highest court in the U.S. state of Florida. It consists of seven justices–one of whom serves as Chief Justice. Six members are chosen from six districts around the state to foster geographic diversity, and one is selected at large.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Nevada</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Nevada

The Supreme Court of Nevada is the highest state court of the U.S. state of Nevada, and the head of the Nevada Judiciary. The main constitutional function of the Supreme Court is to review appeals made directly from the decisions of the district courts. The Supreme Court does not pursue fact-finding by conducting trials, but rather determines whether legal errors were committed in the rendering of the lower court's decision. While the Court must consider all cases filed, it has the discretion to send appeals to the Nevada Court of Appeals for final resolution, as well as the power to determine the jurisdiction of that court.

In law, the standard of review is the amount of deference given by one court in reviewing a decision of a lower court or tribunal. A low standard of review means that the decision under review will be varied or overturned if the reviewing court considers there is any error at all in the lower court's decision. A high standard of review means that deference is accorded to the decision under review, so that it will not be disturbed just because the reviewing court might have decided the matter differently; it will be varied only if the higher court considers the decision to have obvious error. The standard of review may be set by statute or precedent. In the United States, "standard of review" also has a separate meaning concerning the level of deference the judiciary gives to Congress when ruling on the constitutionality of legislation.

The Judiciary Act of 1925, also known as the Judge's Bill or Certiorari Act, was an act of the United States Congress that sought to reduce the workload of the Supreme Court of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme court</span> Highest court in a jurisdiction

A supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts in most legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South Carolina Court of Appeals</span> Intermediate appellate court of South Carolina

The South Carolina Court of Appeals is the intermediate-level appellate court for the state of South Carolina.

In law, an appeal is the process in which cases are reviewed by a higher authority, where parties request a formal change to an official decision. Appeals function both as a process for error correction as well as a process of clarifying and interpreting law. Although appellate courts have existed for thousands of years, common law countries did not incorporate an affirmative right to appeal into their jurisprudence until the 19th century.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Cope, Gerald (January 1993). "Discretionary Review of the Decisions of Intermediate Appellate Courts: A Comparison of Florida's System with Those of the Other States and the Federal System". Florida Law Review. 45 (1): 23–49 – via UF Law Scholarship Repository.
  2. ↑ Poortvliet, Kenneth. "Discretionary Jurisdiction: Definition & Cases". study.com. Retrieved 2023-02-17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Baum, Lawrence (February 1977). "Policy Goals in Judicial Gatekeeping: A Proximity Model of Discretionary Jurisdiction". Midwest Political Science Association. 21 (1): 13–35. JSTOR   2110445 – via JSTOR.
  4. ↑ "How Courts Work". www.americanbar.org. Retrieved 2023-04-03.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 McKenna, Judith A. (December 1994). Structural and Other Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals. DIANE Publishing. p. 7. ISBN   978-0-7881-1575-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  6. 1 2 M. Oldfather, Chad (2010). "Error Correction". Indiana Law Journal. 85 (1): 49–85 – via via Digital Repository at Maurer Law.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 "Taking the Pathway of Discretionary Review Toward Florida's Highest Court". The Florida Bar. Retrieved 2023-04-03.


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.