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.
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. 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.
In law, the expression trial de novo means a "new trial" by a different tribunal. A trial de novo is usually ordered by an appellate court when the original trial failed to decide in a manner dictated by law.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent agency of the federal government of the United States that enforces U.S. labor law in relation to collective bargaining and unfair labor practices. Under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, the NLRB has the authority to supervise elections for labor union representation and to investigate and remedy unfair labor practices. Unfair labor practices may involve union-related situations or instances of protected concerted activity.
The Supreme Court of Virginia is the highest court in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It primarily hears direct appeals in civil cases from the trial-level city and county circuit courts, as well as the criminal law, family law and administrative law cases that are initially appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia. Established in 1779 as the Supreme Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of Virginia is one of the oldest continuously active judicial bodies in the United States.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is an independent quasi-judicial agency established in 1979 to protect federal merit systems against partisan political and other prohibited personnel practices and to ensure adequate protection for federal employees against abuses by agency management.
The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is a federal court of record that was established under Article I of the United States Constitution, and is thus referred to as an Article I tribunal (court). The court has exclusive national jurisdiction to provide independent federal judicial oversight and review of final decisions of the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
The United States has compensated military veterans for service-related injuries since the Revolutionary War, with the current indemnity model established near the end of World War I. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) began to provide disability benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the 1980s after the diagnosis became part of official psychiatric nosology.
Cardona v. Shinseki was an appeal brought in the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) of a decision by the Board of Veterans' Appeals upholding the denial of service-connected disability benefits for the dependent wife of a female veteran. The United States Department of Veterans Affairs denied the disability benefits based on the definition of "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex" under federal statute. On March 11, 2014, the CAVC dismissed the case as moot after the Secretary of Veterans Affairs advised the Court that he would neither defend nor enforce the federal statute. Cardona subsequently received full payment of her spousal benefits, retroactive to her date of application.
In some jurisdictions, a petition for review is a formal request for an appellate tribunal to review the decision 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 United States federal courts, the term "petition for review" is also used to describe petitions that seek review of federal agency actions.
Gilbert v. Derwinski is a United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims case that dealt with the "benefit of the doubt" rule in veterans law.
Thun vs. Peake is a United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims case that dealt with extra-schedular evaluations and the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities.
Barr vs. Nicholson is a United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims case that dealt with the competence of a Veteran's lay testimony to provide lay evidence. The court held that lay evidence can be competent depending on the type of disability claimed by a claimant. Specifically, the court held that lay people are competent to identify varicose veins that are "unnaturally distended or abnormally swollen and tortuous."
Charles vs. Principi is a United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims case that dealt with competency and VA's duty to assist.
Esteban vs. Brown is a United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims case that dealt with the pyramiding rule.
Nieves-Rodriguez vs. Peake is a United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims case that dealt with the adequacy and weighing of medical opinions.
The Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is a senior position within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs that is responsible for the operation and policies of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which is the administrative tribunal within the department responsible for holding hearings and issuing decisions on behalf of the Secretary regarding veterans' claims for benefits and services.
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that clarified the relationship of the right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to other constitutional rights in criminal procedure. In this case, evidence against the defendant was probably seized illegally, violating the Fourth Amendment, but he lost the chance to argue that point due to his lawyer's ineffectiveness. The prosecution argued that the defendant's attempt to make a Sixth Amendment argument via a habeas corpus petition was really a way to sneak his Fourth Amendment argument in through the back door. The Court unanimously disagreed, and held that the Fourth Amendment issue and the Sixth Amendment issue represented different constitutional values, and had different requirements for prevailing in court, and therefore were to be treated separately by rules of procedure. Therefore, the habeas corpus petition could go forward. In its opinion, the Court also gave guidance on how to apply its decisions in Stone v. Powell and Strickland v. Washington.
The Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, also known by the acronym AMA, is a law that reformed how the United States Department of Veterans Affairs handled and adjudicated appeals of claims for veterans' benefits. It was signed into law by President Donald Trump on August 23, 2017, and was one of several VA reforms moved through the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs that year. The law removed three time-consuming steps in the appeals process: the issuance of a Statement of the Case (SOC), the filing of a VA-9, and the Certification of Appeal. It also removed VA regional offices from the appeals process. Appeals now go directly to the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
