Appellate jurisdiction

Appellate jurisdiction is the power of a higher court to hear appeals from a lower court. The higher court can review decisions and change outcomes of the decisions of lower courts. In the federal judiciary, the circuit courts have appellate jurisdiction over the district courts and the supreme court has appellate jurisdiction over the circuit courts. With appellate jurisdiction, most higher courts simply review the lower court's decision to see if any errors were made when it comes to applying the law.

Structure of the United States appellate courts

The Supreme Court of the United States decides cases almost exclusively under its appellate jurisdiction. It can review most decisions of federal courts as well as the decisions of state courts involving questions of constitutionality or statutory law.

Appellate jurisdiction is addressed in reference to the Supreme Court in Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Although the Supreme Court only exercises appellate jurisdiction over decisions of other courts, some U.S. courts may also review the decisions of non-judicial tribunals, such as administrative agencies.

Below the Supreme Court are the 12 Circuit Courts of Appeal. These courts hear appeals from the district courts within their region. In total, there are 94 federal judicial districts spread across the country.

Standards of appellate review

• Sufficiency of the evidence

This review requires the appellate court to determine if the evidence presented at trial supports the weight of the verdict. If the lower court's ruling was in favor of the plaintiff, the higher court looks at whether the evidence, if viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, would persuade an average person the plaintiff had proven his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence in civil cases. The higher court does not re-weigh the evidence presented or attempt to judge the credibility of witnesses; instead, it accepts the trial court's findings and affirms if the sum of those findings meets the necessary threshold.

• Abuse of discretion

Here, the higher court is reviewing the decisions of the trial court judge during the case to determine if he or she acted unreasonably or in an arbitrary manner. Many types of trial court decisions are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard, including the trial judge's decision to award or deny attorney fees in a case.

• Plain error

Plain error means the trial court acted in a way that, on its face, was in error. The higher court will review errors that were not objected to at trial but only if these errors were unjust or unfair. This review is usually applied in exceptional circumstances when one party has been extremely prejudiced by an obvious error. It will not be applied, though, when there is a significant weight of evidence supporting the judgment.

• Harmless error

A harmless error is one that does not change the outcome of the case. If it is harmless, the higher court will affirm the lower court's judgment.

• De novo

"De novo" is a Latin term meaning afresh or beginning again. When a higher court applies this standard, it is reviewing the lower court's application, interpretation, or construction of the law. In essence, the appellate court is viewing the case as if no legal decision had been made previously. The trial court's findings of fact, however, are not disturbed.

• Clearly erroneous

This standard is used when the appealing party disputes the trial court's findings of fact. Because the trial court is in a special position to judge the credibility of witnesses who appear before it when it makes its findings, the appellate court gives "special deference" to those findings and, unless they are obviously mistaken or wrong, those findings will not be overturned.

See also

• Appellate
• Appellate Court
• Appellate review