{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2021}} {{Short description|Legal request to have a case reviewed by a higher authority}} {{redirect|Appellant|rhetorical appeals|Modes of persuasion|appealing blocks on wikipedia|Wikipedia:Appealing a block|other uses|Appeal (disambiguation)|and|Appellants (disambiguation){{!}}Appellants}} {{Globalize |date=May 2016 |discuss=Talk:Appeal#Globalize }} {{Criminal procedure (trial)}}
In [[law]], an '''appeal''' is the process in which [[Legal case|cases]] or decisions 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.<ref>See generally, Keenan D. Kmiec, ''The Origin & Current Meanings of "Judicial Activism"'', 92 {{smallcaps|Cal. L. Rev.}} 1441, 1442 (2004) (discussing contemporary discourse regarding judicial activism); Jonathan Mallamud, ''Prospective Limitation and the Rights of the Accused'', 56 {{smallcaps|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 {{smallcaps|U. Pa. L. Rev.}} 1, 6 (1960) (discussing appeals as "a deliberate and conscious technique of judicial lawmaking").</ref> 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.<ref>Stan Keillor, ''Should Minnesota Recognize A State Constitutional Right to A Criminal Appeal?'', 36 {{smallcaps|Hamline L. Rev.}} 399, 402 (2013).</ref>
== Terminology == "'''Appellate review'''" is the general term for the process by which courts with appellate [[jurisdiction]] exercise jurisdiction over matters decided by lower courts. It is distinguished from [[Judicial review (theory)|judicial review]], which refers to the court's overriding constitutional or statutory right to determine whether a legislative act or administrative decision is defective for jurisdictional or other reasons (which may vary by jurisdiction).
[[American English]] and [[British English]] have diverged significantly on the topic of appellate terminology.<ref name="Garner_Page_67">{{cite book |last1=Garner |first1=Bryan A. |authorlink1=Bryan A. Garner |title=Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage |date=2011 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |isbn=9780195384208 |page=67 |edition=3rd |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=O1m1bI5vCooC&pg=PA67 |access-date=September 10, 2023}}</ref> American cases go up "on appeal" and one "appeals from" ([[Intransitive verb|intransitive]]) or "appeals" ([[Transitive verb|transitive]]) an order, award, [[Judgment (law)|judgment]], or conviction, while decisions of British courts are said to be "under appeal" and one "appeals against" a judgment.<ref name="Garner_Page_67" /> An American court disposes of an appeal with words like "judgment affirmed" (the appeal is without merit) or "judgment reversed" (the appeal has merit), while a British court disposes of an appeal with words like "appeal dismissed" (the appeal is without merit) or "appeal allowed" (the appeal has merit).<ref name="Garner_Page_67" />
In most jurisdictions the normal and preferred way of seeking appellate review is by filing an appeal against the lower court's judgment.
== 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.<ref>Joseph W. Dellapenna & Joyeeta Gupta, {{smallcaps|The Evolution of the Law and Politics of Water}} 29 (2009).</ref> [[Ancient Roman law]] recognized the right to appeal in the [[Valerian and Porcian laws]] since 509 BC. Later it employed a complex hierarchy of appellate courts, where some appeals would be heard by the [[roman emperor|emperor]].<ref>Paul Du Plessis, {{smallcaps|Borkowski's Textbook on Roman Law}} 82 (2015).</ref> Additionally, appellate courts have existed in Japan since at least the [[Kamakura shogunate]] (1185–1333). During this time, the shogunate established ''{{lang|ja-latn|[[hikitsuke]]}}'', a high appellate court to aid the state in adjudicating lawsuits.<ref>John Stewart Bowman, {{smallcaps|Columbia Chronologies of Asian History and Culture}} 133 (2013).</ref>
Although some scholars argue that "the right to appeal is itself a substantive liberty interest",<ref>Gary Stein, ''Expanding as per the Process Rights of Indigent Litigants: Will Texaco Trickle Down?'', 61 {{smallcaps|N.Y.U.L. Rev.}} 463, 487-88 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).</ref> the notion of a right to appeal is a relatively recent advent in common law jurisdictions.<ref>See Peter D. Marshall, [http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=djcil ''A Comparative Analysis of the Right to Appeal''], 22 {{smallcaps|Duke J. of Comp. & Int. L.}} 1, 1 (2011) ("The right to appeal is a comparatively recent addition to the common law criminal process.")</ref> Commentators have observed that common law jurisdictions were particularly "slow to incorporate a right to appeal into either its civil or criminal jurisprudence".<ref>Stan Keillor, [https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=hlr ''Should Minnesota Recognize A State Constitutional Right to A Criminal Appeal?''], 36 {{smallcaps|Hamline L. Rev.}} 399, 402 (2013)</ref>
The idea of an appeal from court to court (as distinguished from court directly to the Crown) was unheard of in early English courts.<ref name="Orfield">{{cite journal |last1=Orfield |first1=Lester B. |title=History of Criminal Appeal in England |journal=Missouri Law Review |date=1936 |volume=1 |issue=4 |pages=326–338 |url=https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=mlr |access-date=28 April 2020 |publisher=University of Missouri School of Law |location=Columbia}}</ref> English common law courts eventually developed the [[writs of error]] and [[certiorari]] as routes to appellate relief, but both types of writs were severely limited in comparison to modern appeals in terms of availability, scope of review, and remedies afforded.<ref name="Orfield" /> For example, writs of error were originally not available as a matter of right and were issued only upon the recommendation of the [[Attorney General for England and Wales|attorney general]] (which was initially discretionary but by modern times was regularly granted).<ref name="Orfield" /> Certiorari was originally available only for [[summary offence]]s; in the early 19th century, certiorari became available for [[indictable offence]]s, but only to obtain relief before judgment.<ref name="Orfield" /> Due to widespread dissatisfaction with writs (resulting in the introduction of at least 28 separate bills in Parliament), England switched over to appeals in civil cases in 1873, and in criminal cases in 1907.<ref name="Orfield" />
== Appellate procedure == {{quote box|align=right|width=30em|quote=We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.|source=—Associate Supreme Court Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]], discussing the [[Supreme Court of the United States]]' role as a court of last resort.<ref>''[[Brown v. Allen]]'', {{ussc|volume=344|page=443|pin=540|year=1953}} (Jackson, J., conc.).</ref>}} [[File:New York Court of Appeals hearing oral arguments.jpg|right|thumb|The [[New York Court of Appeals]] hears [[oral argument]]s in a 2009 case involving the [[Atlantic Yards]] development in Brooklyn]] Although some courts permit appeals at preliminary stages of [[litigation]], most litigants appeal final orders and judgments from lower courts.<ref>Rebecca A. Cochran, ''Gaining Appellate Review by "Manufacturing" A Final Judgment Through Voluntary Dismissal of Peripheral Claims'', 48 {{smallcaps|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: [http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/insrv/resources/edc/Court%20of%20Justice.pdf//The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)] (noting that the court has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of lower courts).</ref> A fundamental premise of many legal systems is that appellate courts review questions of law ''[[De novo review|de novo]]'', but appellate courts do not conduct independent fact-finding.<ref>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'', {{ussc|volume=456|page=273|pin=291|year=1982}} ("[Factfinding] is the basic responsibility of [[district courts]], rather than appellate courts ...") (internal citations and quotations omitted).</ref> Instead, appellate courts will generally defer to the record established by the [[trial court]], unless some error occurred during the fact-finding process.<ref>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, {{smallcaps|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.")</ref> In some jurisdictions on the other hand, such as the Netherlands, appellate courts review cases in their entirety, which includes fact-finding.<ref>DCL Dutch Civil Law (Uitgeverij Althea B.V.), ''Legal proceedings in Dutch civil law'', [http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/jurisdiction/legalsystem011.htm#005 http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/jurisdiction/legalsystem011.htm]</ref> Many [[jurisdictions]] provide a [[statutory]] or [[constitutional right]] for litigants to appeal adverse decisions.<ref>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 6 February 1889, ch. 113, § 6, 25 Stat. 656, 656 (establishing a statutory right to appeals in federal capital cases in the United States).</ref> However, most jurisdictions also recognize that this right may be [[waiver|waived]]. In the United States, for example, litigants may waive the right to appeal, as long as the waiver is "considered and intelligent".<ref>See, e.g., ''United States v. Mendoza-Lopez'', {{ussc|volume=481|page=828|year=1987}}.</ref>
The appellate process usually begins when an appellate court grants a party's [[petition for review]] or petition for certiorari.<ref>See e.g. Sup. Ct. R. 10(a), available at [https://web.archive.org/web/20150723141606/http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf/ Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (2013)].</ref> Unlike trials, which many [[common law]] jurisdictions typically perform with a [[jury]], appeals are generally presented to a judge, or a panel of judges.<ref>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.").</ref> Before hearing oral [[argument]], parties will generally submit [[legal brief]]s in which the parties present their arguments at length in writing.<ref>See, e.g., Sup. Ct. R. 15, available at [https://web.archive.org/web/20150723141606/http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf/ Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (2013)].</ref> Appellate courts may also grant permission for an ''amicus curiae'' to submit a brief in support of a particular party or position.<ref>See, e.g., Sup. Ct. R. 37, available at [https://web.archive.org/web/20150723141606/http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf/ Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (2013)].</ref> After submitting briefs, parties often have the opportunity to present an [[oral argument]] to a [[judge]] or panel of judges.<ref>See, e.g., Sup. Ct. R. 28, available at [https://web.archive.org/web/20150723141606/http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf/ Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (2013)].</ref> During oral arguments, judges often ask questions to [[Lawyer|attorneys]] to challenge their arguments or to advance their own legal theories.<ref>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).</ref> After deliberating in chambers, appellate courts issue formal written opinions that resolve the [[legal issues]] presented for review.<ref>See e.g. Sup. Ct. R. 41, available at [https://web.archive.org/web/20150723141606/http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf/ Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (2013)].</ref>
{{anchor|Outcome}}The appeal may end with a reversal, in which the lower court's decision is found to be incorrect (resulting in the original judgement being vacated, and the lower court instructed to retry the case)<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reversal |title=reversal |website=cornell.edu |accessdate=October 14, 2023}}</ref> or an affirmation, in which the lower court's decision is found to be correct.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirm |title=affirm |website=cornell.edu |accessdate=October 14, 2023}}</ref> {{more|Reversible error}}
== Appellate courts == {{main|Appellate court}} [[File:Supreme Court of Victoria (5064240836).jpg|thumb|right|292px|The Victorian [[Supreme Court of Victoria|Court of Appeal]]]] When considering cases on appeal, appellate courts generally affirm, reverse, or [[Vacated judgment|vacate]] the decision of a lower court.<ref>Joan Steinman, ''Appellate Courts as First Responders: The Constitutionality and Propriety of Appellate Courts' Resolving Issues in the First Instance'', 87 {{smallcaps|Notre Dame L. Rev.}} 1521, 1522 (2012).</ref> Some courts maintain a dual function, where they consider both appeals and matters of "first instance".<ref>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).</ref> For example, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] primarily hears cases on appeal but retains original jurisdiction over a limited range of cases.<ref>[[James E. Pfander]], ''Rethinking the Supreme Court's Original Jurisdiction in State-Party Cases'', 82 Cal. L. Rev. 555, 555 (1994).</ref> Some jurisdictions maintain a system of intermediate appellate courts, which are subject to the review of higher appellate courts.<ref>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).</ref> The highest appellate court in a jurisdiction is sometimes referred to as a "court of last resort" or supreme court.<ref>Gregory L. Acquaviva and John D. Castiglione, ''Judicial Diversity on State Supreme Courts'', 39 ''Seton Hall L. Rev.'' 1203, 1205 (2009).</ref>
== See also == * [[Appellate procedure in the United States]] * [[Civil procedure]] * [[Criminal appeal]] * [[Judicial review]] * [[List of legal topics]] * [[Scope of review]]
== Notes == {{NoteFoot}}
== References == {{Reflist}}
{{Authority control}}
[[Category:Appellate review]] [[Category:Judiciaries]] [[Category:Lawsuits]] [[Category:Legal procedure]]