Discretionary review


Discretionary review

Discretionary review is the authority of appellate courts 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.[1]

Discretionary review contrasts with mandatory review, in which appellate courts must consider all appeals submitted.

The advantage to discretionary review is that it enables an appellate court to focus its limited resources on developing a coherent body of case law, or at least it is able to focus on making decisions in consistent fashion (in jurisdictions where case law is not recognized). The disadvantage is that it reduces the ability of litigants to seek review of incorrect decisions of lower courts. However, the problem with allowing appeals of right through all appellate levels is that it encourages parties to exploit every technical error of each level of the court system as a basis for further review. Discretionary review forces parties to always concentrate their resources on persuading the trial court to get it right the first time around (rather than assuming an appellate court will "fix it later"), thus increasing the overall efficiency of the judicial system. Of course, it also leaves them at the mercy of the discretion of the trial court.

Europe

The European Commission on Human Rights exercised discretionary review against the petitions it received under the European Convention on Human Rights, rejecting those that it determined were ill-founded (by showing no apparent violation), which has allowed it to manage its caseload accordingly. By doing so, the Commission has evolved from a "service organisation" to a "commonweal organisation" whose decisions create legal precedent for future cases affecting the public.[2]

United States

For the Supreme Court of the United States, this discretion is termed the granting of a writ of certiorari ("cert"). This discretion was not granted to the Court until 1891, after its docket became clogged with pro forma appeals from various lower courts. Congress then created the United States court of appeals system divided into nine regional circuits, with the Supreme Court generally only hearing cases from the Appeals level, or from the highest state court. The Judiciary Act of 1925 further expanded certiorari, authorizing the court to determine any case from a lower level concerning "federal questions of substance." Today, 98 percent of federal cases are decided at the Appeals level.[3] In 1988, Congress further limited appeals with the Supreme Court Case Selections Act, eliminating the right of appeal from certain state court decisions construing federal law.

A similar model holds in most U.S. state judiciaries, with discretionary review only available to the state's supreme court, and the appeals courts bound to hear all appeals. In North Carolina, the supreme court's choice to exercise discretionary review depends not on whether the case was decided correctly with regard to the defendant's guilt, but whether the particular legal questions raised in the appeal have a public interest, involve important legal principles, or conflict with precedents set by prior supreme courts.[4] In Texas, discretionary review is granted to both of the state's supreme courts (Texas is one of two states with separate supreme courts for civil and criminal cases) for all but death penalty cases, which the Court of Criminal Appeals is required to review, bypassing the Texas Courts of Appeals.[5]

References


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • discretionary review — Form of appellate review which is not a matter of right but rather occurs only at the discretion of the appellate court; e.g. appeal to U.S. Supreme Court. See certiorari …   Black's law dictionary

  • discretionary review — Form of appellate review which is not a matter of right but rather occurs only at the discretion of the appellate court; e.g. appeal to U.S. Supreme Court. See certiorari …   Black's law dictionary

  • Discretionary jurisdiction — is a legal term used to describe a circumstance where a court has the power to decide whether to hear a particular case brought before it. Most courts have no such power, and must entertain any case properly filed, so long as the court has… …   Wikipedia

  • Judicial review — is the power of the courts to annul the acts of the executive and/or the legislative power where it finds them incompatible with a higher norm. Judicial review is an example of the functioning of separation of powers in a modern governmental… …   Wikipedia

  • United States Court of Military Commission Review — The Military Commissions Act of 2006 mandated that rulings from the Guantanamo military commissions could be appealed to a Court of Military Commission Review, which would sit in Washington D.C..[1][2][3][4] In the event, the Review Court was not …   Wikipedia

  • Medical peer review — For the review of scholarly papers in refereed journals, see Peer review. For a more in depth assessment of Physician, External and Nursing peer review, and the history of peer review, see Clinical peer review. Medical peer review is the process… …   Wikipedia

  • Harvard Law Review — Infobox Journal title = Harvard Law Review editor = discipline = Law review language = English abbreviation = HLR publisher = The Harvard Law Review Association country = United States frequency = Monthly (Eight times a year, November through… …   Wikipedia

  • Judicial review in English law — See also: Judicial review Judicial review is a procedure in English administrative law by which the courts in England and Wales supervise the exercise of public power on the application of an individual. A person who feels that an exercise of… …   Wikipedia

  • Standard of review — In law, the standard of review is the amount of deference given by one court (or some other appellate tribunal) 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… …   Wikipedia

  • Judicial review in English Law — Judicial review is a procedure in English administrative law by which the courts supervise the exercise of public power on the application of an individual. A person who feels that an exercise of such power by a government authority, such as a… …   Wikipedia


Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”

We are using cookies for the best presentation of our site. Continuing to use this site, you agree with this.