Appeal

Last updated
The Karnataka High Court (High Court Building pictured) primarily hears appeals from subordinate courts in the Indian state of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore MMK.jpg
The Karnataka High Court (High Court Building pictured) primarily hears appeals from subordinate courts in the Indian state of Karnataka

In law, an appeal is the process in which cases are reviewed, 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. [1] 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. [2]

Law System of rules and guidelines, generally backed by governmental authority

Law is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior. It has been defined both as "the Science of Justice" and "the Art of Justice". Law is a system that regulates and ensures that individuals or a community adhere to the will of the state. State-enforced laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or established by judges through precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions. Private individuals can create legally binding contracts, including arbitration agreements that may elect to accept alternative arbitration to the normal court process. The formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution, written or tacit, and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics, history and society in various ways and serves as a mediator of relations between people.

Common law Law developed by judges

In law, common law is that body of law derived from judicial decisions of courts and similar tribunals. The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts, and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is usually bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision. If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases, and legislative statutes are either silent or ambiguous on the question, judges have the authority and duty to resolve the issue. The court states an opinion that gives reasons for the decision, and those reasons agglomerate with past decisions as precedent to bind future judges and litigants. Common law, as the body of law made by judges, stands in contrast to and on equal footing with statutes which are adopted through the legislative process, and regulations which are promulgated by the executive branch. Stare decisis, the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems.

Contents

History

Appellate courts and other systems of error correction have existed for many millennia. During the first dynasty of Babylon, Hammurabi and his governors served as the highest appellate courts of the land. [3] Ancient Roman law employed a complex hierarchy of appellate courts, where some appeals would be heard by the emperor. [4] Additionally, appellate courts have existed in Japan since at least the Kamakura Shogunate (1185–1333 CE). During this time, the Shogunate established hikitsuke , a high appellate court to aid the state in adjudicating lawsuits. [5] In the Eighteenth century, William Blackstone observed in his Commentaries on the Laws of England that appeals existed as a form of error correction in the common law during the reign of Edward III of England. [6]

Hammurabi sixth king of Babylon

Hammurabi was the sixth king of the First Babylonian Dynasty, reigning from 1792 BC to 1750 BC. He was preceded by his father, Sin-Muballit, who abdicated due to failing health. During his reign, he conquered Elam and the city-states of Larsa, Eshnunna, and Mari. He ousted Ishme-Dagan I, the king of Assyria, and forced his son Mut-Ashkur to pay tribute, bringing almost all of Mesopotamia under Babylonian rule.

Roman emperor ruler of the Roman Empire

The Roman emperor was the ruler of the Roman Empire during the imperial period. The emperors used a variety of different titles throughout history. Often when a given Roman is described as becoming "emperor" in English, it reflects his taking of the title Augustus or Caesar. Another title often used was imperator, originally a military honorific. Early Emperors also used the title princeps. Emperors frequently amassed republican titles, notably princeps senatus, consul and pontifex maximus.

The Hikitsuke or Hikitsuke-kata (引付方) was one of the judicial organs of the Kamakura and Muromachi shogunates of Japan.

Although some scholars argue that "the right to appeal is itself a substantive liberty interest", [7] the notion of a right to appeal is a relatively recent advent in common law jurisdictions. [8] In fact, commentators have observed that common law jurisdictions were particularly "slow to incorporate a right to appeal into either its civil or criminal jurisprudence". [9] For example, the United States first created a system of federal appellate courts in 1789, [note 1] but a federal right to appeal did not exist in the United States until 1889, when Congress passed the Judiciary Act to permit appeals in capital cases. [15] Two years later, the right to appeals was extended to other criminal cases, and the United States Courts of Appeals were established to review decisions from district courts. [16] Some states, such as Minnesota, still do not formally recognize a right to criminal appeals. [17]

Minnesota State of the United States of America

Minnesota is a state in the Upper Midwest, Great Lakes, and northern regions of the United States. Minnesota was admitted as the 32nd U.S. state on May 11, 1858, created from the eastern half of the Minnesota Territory. The state has a large number of lakes, and is known by the slogan the "Land of 10,000 Lakes". Its official motto is L'Étoile du Nord.

Appellate procedure

We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.

—Associate Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, discussing the Supreme Court of the United States' role as a court of last resort. [18]

Robert H. Jackson American judge

Robert Houghwout Jackson was an American attorney and judge who served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He had previously served as United States Solicitor General, and United States Attorney General, and is the only person to have held all three of those offices. Jackson was also notable for his work as the Chief United States Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals following World War II.

Supreme Court of the United States Highest court in the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. Established pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution in 1789, it has original jurisdiction over a narrow range of cases, including suits between two or more states and those involving ambassadors. It also has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal court and state court cases that involve a point of federal constitutional or statutory law. The Court has the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution or an executive act for being unlawful. However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide nonjusticiable political questions. Each year it agrees to hear about one hundred to one hundred fifty of the more than seven thousand cases that it is asked to review.

Although some courts permit appeals at preliminary stages of litigation, most litigants appeal final orders and judgments from lower courts. [19] A fundamental premise of many legal systems is that appellate courts review questions of law de novo , but appellate courts do not conduct independent fact-finding. [20] Instead, appellate courts will generally defer to the record established by the trial court, unless some error occurred during the fact-finding process. [21] Many jurisdictions provide a statutory or constitutional right for litigants to appeal adverse decisions. [22] However, most jurisdictions also recognize that this right may be waived. In the United States, for example, litigants may waive the right to appeal, as long as the waiver is "considered and intelligent". [23]

A waiver is the voluntary relinquishment or surrender of some known right or privilege.

The appellate process usually begins when an appellate court grants a party's petition for review or petition for certiorari. [24] Unlike trials, appeals are generally presented to a judge, or a panel of judges, rather than a jury. [25] Before making any formal argument, parties will generally submit legal briefs in which the parties present their arguments. [26] Appellate courts may also grant permission for an amicus curiae to submit a brief in support of a particular party or position. [27] After submitting briefs, parties often have the opportunity to present an oral argument to a judge or panel of judges. [28] During oral arguments, judges often ask question to attorneys to challenge their arguments or to advance their own legal theories. [29] After deliberating in chambers, appellate courts will issue formal opinions that resolve the legal issues presented for review. [30]

Petition for review

In some jurisdictions, a petition for review is a formal request for an appellate tribunal to review and make changes to the judgment of a lower court or administrative body. If a jurisdiction utilizes petitions for review, then parties seeking appellate review of their case may submit a formal petition for review to an appropriate court. In the federal judiciary of the United States, the term "petition for review" is also used to describe petitions that seek review of federal agency orders or actions.

Judge official who presides over court proceedings

A judge is a person who presides over court proceedings, either alone or as a part of a panel of judges. The powers, functions, method of appointment, discipline, and training of judges vary widely across different jurisdictions. The judge is supposed to conduct the trial impartially and, typically, in an open court. The judge hears all the witnesses and any other evidence presented by the barristers of the case, assesses the credibility and arguments of the parties, and then issues a ruling on the matter at hand based on his or her interpretation of the law and his or her own personal judgment. In some jurisdictions, the judge's powers may be shared with a jury. In inquisitorial systems of criminal investigation, a judge might also be an examining magistrate.

Jury sworn body of people convened to render a verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment

A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Modern juries tend to be found in courts to ascertain the guilt or lack thereof in a crime. In Anglophone jurisdictions, the verdict may be guilty or not guilty. The old institution of grand juries still exists in some places, particularly the United States, to investigate whether enough evidence of a crime exists to bring someone to trial.

Appellate courts

When considering cases on appeal, appellate courts generally affirm, reverse, or vacate the decision of a lower court. [31] Some courts maintain a dual function, where they consider both appeals as well as matters of "first instance". [32] For example, the Supreme Court of the United States primarily hears cases on appeal but retains original jurisdiction over a limited range of cases. [33] Some jurisdictions maintain a system of intermediate appellate courts, which are subject to the review of higher appellate courts. [34] The highest appellate court in a jurisdiction is sometimes referred to as a "court of last resort". [35]

See also

Notes

  1. Article III of the United States Constitution specifies that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." [10] In 1789, Congress created the first system of intermediate appellate courts, known as federal circuit courts, which had appellate jurisdiction over certain matters decided by District Courts. [11] These federal circuit courts consisted of two justices from the Supreme Court of the United States and one district court judge. [12] In 1891, Congress created the existing system of United States courts of appeals, which hear appeals from United States district courts within limited geographic areas. [13] For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit hears appeals originating from United States district courts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Decisions in circuit courts are usually made by rotating three-judge panels chosen from judges sitting within that circuit, and circuit courts also occasionally decide cases en banc. [14]

Related Research Articles

Appellate procedure in the United States 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.

In the United States, a state supreme court is the ultimate judicial tribunal in the court system of a particular state. On matters of state law, the decisions of a state supreme court are considered final and binding on state and even United States federal courts.

State court (United States) court of a U.S. state

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 much smaller in case load and personnel, United States federal courts, handle different types of cases.

The judiciary is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in a country, or an international community. The first legal systems of the world were set up to prevent citizens to settle conflicts with violence.

United States courts of appeals post-1891 U.S. appellate circuit courts

The United States courts of appeals or circuit courts are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal court system. A court of appeals decides appeals from the district courts within its federal judicial circuit, and in some instances from other designated federal courts and administrative agencies.

In common law systems, a superior court is a court of general competence which typically has unlimited jurisdiction with regard to civil and criminal legal cases. A superior court is "superior" relative to a court with limited jurisdiction, which is restricted to civil cases involving monetary amounts with a specific limit, or criminal cases involving offenses of a less serious nature. A superior court may hear appeals from lower courts.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the districts of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a U.S. Federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:

Circuit courts are court systems in several common law jurisdictions. The core concept of circuit courts requires judges to travel to different locales to ensure wide visibility and understanding of cases in a region. More generally, some modern circuit courts may also refer to a court that merely holds trials for cases of multiple locations in some rotation.

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is an Article I court that exercises worldwide appellate jurisdiction over members of the United States Armed Forces on active duty and other persons subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The court is composed of five civilian judges appointed for 15-year terms by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. The court reviews decisions from the intermediate appellate courts of the services: the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

Federal judiciary of the United States judiciary

The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. Article III of the Constitution requires the establishment of a Supreme Court and permits the Congress to create other federal courts, and place limitations on their jurisdiction. Article III federal judges are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate to serve until they resign, are impeached and convicted, retire, or die.

Judiciary of Australia

The judiciary of Australia comprises judges who sit in federal courts and courts of the States and Territories of Australia. The High Court of Australia sits at the apex of the Australian court hierarchy as the ultimate court of appeal on matters of both federal and State law.

United States Court of Federal Claims

The United States Court of Federal Claims is a United States federal court that hears monetary claims against the U.S. government. It is the direct successor to the United States Court of Claims, which was founded in 1855, and is therefore a revised version of one of the oldest federal courts in the country.

The United States territorial courts are tribunals established in territories of the United States by the United States Congress, pursuant to its power under Article Four of the United States Constitution, the Territorial Clause. Most United States territorial courts are defunct because the territories under their jurisdiction have become states or been retroceded.

Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971), is a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a state law limiting marriage to persons of the opposite sex did not violate the U.S. Constitution. Baker appealed, and on October 10, 1972, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question". Because the case came to the U.S. Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review, the dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as precedent, though the extent of its precedential effect had been subject to debate. In May 2013, Minnesota legalized same-sex marriage and it took effect on August 1, 2013. Subsequently, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly overruled Baker in Obergefell v. Hodges, making same-sex marriage legal nationwide.

Jeffrey Sutton American judge

Jeffrey Stuart Sutton is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Non-publication of legal opinions is the practice of a court issuing unpublished opinions. An unpublished opinion is a decision of a court that is not available for citation as precedent because the court deems the case to have insufficient precedential value.

The supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts in many 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.

Circuit split

In United States federal courts, a circuit split occurs when two or more different circuit courts of appeals provide conflicting rulings on the same legal issue. The existence of a circuit split is one of the factors that the Supreme Court of the United States considers when deciding whether to grant review of a case. Some scholars suggest that the Supreme Court is more likely to grant review of a case to resolve a circuit split than for any other reason.

Certified question

In the law of the United States, a certified question is a formal request by one court from another court, usually but not always in another jurisdiction, for an opinion on a question of law.

United States v. More, 7 U.S. 159 (1805), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear appeals from criminal cases in the circuit courts by writs of error. Relying on the Exceptions Clause, More held that Congress's enumerated grants of appellate jurisdiction to the Court operated as an exercise of Congress's power to eliminate all other forms of appellate jurisdiction.

References

  1. See generally, Keenan D. Kmiec, The Origin & Current Meanings of "Judicial Activism", 92 Cal. L. Rev. 1441, 1442 (2004) (discussing contemporary discourse regarding judicial activism); Jonathan Mallamud, Prospective Limitation and the Rights of the Accused, 56 Iowa L.Rev. 321, 359 (1970) ("the power of the courts to contribute to the growth of the law in keeping with the demands of society”); Realist Jurisprudence & Prospective Overruling, 109 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1, 6 (1960) (discussing appeals as “a deliberate and conscious technique of judicial lawmaking”).
  2. Stan Keillor, Should Minnesota Recognize A State Constitutional Right to A Criminal Appeal?, 36 Hamline L. Rev. 399, 402 (2013).
  3. Joseph W. Dellapenna & Joyeeta Gupta, The Evolution of the Law and Politics of Water 29 (2009).
  4. Paul Du Plessis, Borkowski's Textbook on Roman Law 82 (2015).
  5. John Stewart Bowman, Columbia Chronologies of Asian History and Culture 133 (2013).
  6. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, the Third - Chapter the Twenty-Fifth: Of Proceedings, In the Nature of Appeals.
  7. Gary Stein, Expanding as per the Process Rights of Indigent Litigants: Will Texaco Trickle Down?, 61 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 463, 487-88 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  8. See Peter D. Marshall, A Comparative Analysis of the Right to Appeal, 22 Duke J. of Comp. & Int. L. 1, 1 (2011) ("The right to appeal is a comparatively recent addition to the common law criminal process.")
  9. Stan Keillor, Should Minnesota Recognize A State Constitutional Right to A Criminal Appeal?, 36 Hamline L. Rev. 399, 402 (2013)
  10. U.S. Const. art. III, § 1.
  11. Daniel John Meador and Jordana Simone Bernstein, Appellate Courts in the United States 7 (1994); Ruth A. Moyer, Disagreement About Disagreement: The Effect of A Circuit Split or "Other Circuit" Authority on the Availability of Federal Habeas Relief for State Convicts, 82 U. Cin. L. Rev. 831, 836 (2014) (discussing history of federal circuit courts).
  12. Ruth A. Moyer, Disagreement About Disagreement: The Effect of A Circuit Split or "Other Circuit" Authority on the Availability of Federal Habeas Relief for State Convicts, 82 U. Cin. L. Rev. 831, 836 (2014).
  13. Daniel John Meador and Jordana Simone Bernstein, Appellate Courts in the United States 7 (1994).
  14. Arthur D. Hellman, "The Law of the Circuit" Revisited: What Role for Majority Rule?, 32 S. Ill. U. L.J. 625 (2008); see also Fed. R. App. P. 35(a).
  15. Act of February 6, 1889, ch. 113, § 6, 25 Stat. 656, 656.
  16. Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 517, § 5; 26 Stat. 826, 827-28.
  17. Spann v. State, 704 N.W.2d 486, 491 (Minn. 2005) (but noting that the right to at least one review by direct appeal or postconviction review has been recognized in Minnesota); Stan Keillor, Should Minnesota Recognize A State Constitutional Right to A Criminal Appeal?, 36 Hamline L. Rev. 399, 401-02 (2013) ("[S]aying 'there is no constitutional right to appeal' in criminal cases is a shibboleth").
  18. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953) (Jackson, J., conc.).
  19. Rebecca A. Cochran, Gaining Appellate Review by "Manufacturing" A Final Judgment Through Voluntary Dismissal of Peripheral Claims, 48 Mercer L. Rev. 979, 979-80 (1997) (noting that in the United States, "[a]ppeals through rule 54(b),2 section 1292(b), 3 the collateral order doctrine, and other avenues have become increasingly limited"); see also Information Guide: Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (noting that the court has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of lower courts).
  20. Debra Lyn Bassett, "I Lost at Trial - in the Court of Appeals!": The Expanding Power of the Federal Appellate Courts to Reexamine Facts, 38 Hous. L. Rev. 1129, 1130 (2001); see also Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 291 (1982) ("[Factfinding] is the basic responsibility of district courts, rather than appellate courts ...") (internal citations and quotations omitted).
  21. Debra Lyn Bassett, "I Lost at Trial - in the Court of Appeals!": The Expanding Power of the Federal Appellate Courts to Reexamine Facts, 38 Hous. L. Rev. 1129, 1130 (2001); cf. Leon Green, Judge and Jury 270 (1930) ("[T]hose equally expansible and collapsible terms 'law' and 'fact' ... They are basic assumptions; irreducible minimums and the most comprehensive maximums at the same instant. They readily accommodate themselves to any meaning we desire to give them.")
  22. See Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c.59) (establishing a nearly unlimited right of appeal to the Lords in England and Wales); Act of February 6, 1889, ch. 113, § 6, 25 Stat. 656, 656 (establishing a statutory right to appeals in federal capital cases in the United States).
  23. See, e.g., United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (1987).
  24. See e.g. Sup. Ct. R. 10(a), available at Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (2013).
  25. Debra Lyn Bassett, "I Lost at Trial - in the Court of Appeals!": The Expanding Power of the Federal Appellate Courts to Reexamine Facts, 38 Hous. L. Rev. 1129, 1131 (2001) ("This established dichotomy between the responsibilities of the jury and those of the reviewing court resulted from the jury's revered position in our country's history.").
  26. See, e.g., Sup. Ct. R. 15, available at Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (2013).
  27. See, e.g., Sup. Ct. R. 37, available at Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (2013).
  28. See, e.g., Sup. Ct. R. 28, available at Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (2013).
  29. Sarah Levien Shullman, The Illusion of Devil's Advocacy: How the Justices of the Supreme Court Foreshadow Their Decisions During Oral Argument, 6 J. App. Prac. & Process 271 (2004).
  30. See e.g. Sup. Ct. R. 41, available at Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (2013).
  31. Joan Steinman, Appellate Courts as First Responders: The Constitutionality and Propriety of Appellate Courts' Resolving Issues in the First Instance, 87 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1521, 1522 (2012).
  32. Joseph D. Kearney & Thomas W. Merrill, The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court, 148 U. Pa. L. Rev. 743, 837 n.6 (2000).
  33. James E. Pfander, Rethinking the Supreme Court's Original Jurisdiction in State-Party Cases, 82 Cal. L. Rev. 555, 555 (1994).
  34. Joan Steinman, Appellate Courts as First Responders: The Constitutionality and Propriety of Appellate Courts' Resolving Issues in the First Instance, 87 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1521, 1542 (2012) (discussing role and function of intermediate appellate courts).
  35. Gregory L. Acquaviva and John D. Castiglione, Judicial Diversity on State Supreme Courts, 39 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1203, 1205 (2009).