Talk:Appellate court

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Court of Appeals)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Automated suggestions[edit]

There has to some information specific to India as in india, also there are various courts which function as appellate court. Supreme court for high courts and high courts for session courts Ntu129 (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC) An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Appellate_court article:

  • Can link one party: ...ourt — has already made some decision, which at least one party to the action wants to challenge based upon some legal grou...
    • No good; completely different sense of the word. bd2412 T 05:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link toLinkBot 11:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Any thoughts on why we shouldn't merge this with Appeals court and Court of Appeals? -- PullUpYourSocks 17:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That has been done with respect to appeals court. Court of Appeals remains a separate article, for reasons which seem reasonable if you review the article. Ellsworth 22:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

A different merge?[edit]

A lot of this information should probably be in Appeal, either instead of or in addition to Appellate court. Surgo 11:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the article Court of Appeals[edit]

Please see my move proposal at Talk:Court of Appeals#Rename this article?. --Mathew5000 19:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparative authority[edit]

I'd like to add something to this article about the comparative authority of appellate courts - it is my understanding that in countries like China and Iran, the appellate courts can do basically whatever they want, whereas in most common law and civil law systems their powers of review are substantially more limited. Any thoughts? bd2412 T 18:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as it isn't original research. If you can find some book or law review article that actually stands for that proposition, then by all means, go ahead. --Coolcaesar 06:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I was sort of hoping to plumb for anyone with knowledge of such a source. Cheers! bd2412 T 09:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

US Appeals court gives legal advice?[edit]

In the Roman Polanski rape case, the news is that the justices of the 2nd Circuit here in L.A. are giving advice and suggestions about the handling of Polanski's case, and how he could avoid jail time. Is this proper? Nothing in the article suggests that this is within the job description scope of a U.S. appeals court. JohnClarknew (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they were discussing hypothetical situations in order to evaluate whether the fugitive disentitlement doctrine applies to him. Appellate judges play devil's advocate all the time at oral argument. They'll throw out weird hypothetical situations, that is, legal curve balls, just to try to knock an attorney off balance. The point is to force the advocates to sharpen and refine the exact legal points they're making, which in turn helps the judges figure out what they are supposed to be deciding. In this case, the handling of Polanski's case is relevant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine because his lawyers need to convince the judges to allow him some narrow exception to the doctrine based on the alleged misconduct in the lower court. In turn, the judges need to pose hypotheticals about what Polanski could have or should have done in response to the alleged misconduct, in order to force his lawyers to clarify the exact dimensions of the very narrow exception to fugitive disentitlement which the judges would need to adopt to grant him the relief he seeks. But it's easy for laypersons and journalists to mistake such hypos for actual advice. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, layperson here. This one thought that Courts of Appeal are created for the purpose of appealing the result of a lower court ruling. That is, after a case has gone to trial. Are you saying that the court is open to petitions and oral arguments prior to a trial? A kind of "what if?" game? JohnClarknew (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
But if a court dismisses a case before trial, or refuses to hear the case for some reason, then there is no trial and the decision refusing to allow a trial is itself a final adverse judgment that is appealable. For example, a huge number of reported appellate cases today (probably almost two-thirds) are based on the grant of summary judgment to one side or the other, meaning by definition, there is no triable issue of fact as a matter of law. That is, the plaintiff must be able to present admissible evidence in support of each and every required element of his case. If the plaintiff, after sufficient time for discovery, can't present such evidence, then there's no need for a trial. The reason is that during a trial, at the end of plaintiff's case-in-chief, the defense would be able to move successfully for nonsuit or a directed verdict, meaning the case would never go to the jury because there is no issue of disputed factual evidence for them to decide---indeed, there's no evidence at all. The idea is that if you can't support one element of your case, the rest of it becomes irrelevant. Each and every element must be supported by factual evidence in the record for a jury's final judgment to be affirmed on appeal. So why waste a jury's time? Anyway, after an MSJ is granted, the party denied a trial (usually the plaintiff) then appeals and asks the appellate court to reverse and remand for trial. If a MSJ is denied, then a case proceeds to trial, and the parties almost always settle on the eve of trial, unless there are millions of dollars at stake that would justify the typical investment of $100,000 (or higher) to put on a show for the jury.
In this case, Polanski is appealing the trial court's refusal to hear his case on the merits because of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. The court issued an adverse ruling basically saying "I'm not going to hear you because you fled the jurisdiction and failed to cooperate with the court," which itself is appealable. If the Court of Appeal finds some reason for why fugitive disentitlement should not apply and issues a writ of mandate overturning the trial court's ruling, then Polanski can then force the trial court to hear whatever motion or writ he wants to present to challenge his original plea bargain and sentence. If the Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's ruling, then Polanski can't do anything until he is extradited through the appropriate channels and remanded to the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to serve his original sentence. Once back on California soil, he's under the jurisdiction of the California courts and can, in turn, challenge their jurisdiction over him through a collateral attack, a writ for habeas corpus. Though even then, that will be extremely difficult because judges are sick and tired of reading frivolous habeas petitions from prisoners who have nothing to do all day but draft frivolous petitions. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. This info is helpful, so I've copied it over to the Polanski discussion page. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Article does not deal with the subject.[edit]

This article should be renamed to the USA Appelate court or something like that, because it only deals with the US judicial system and not a worldwide view of the subject. It is surprising that since the tag was added in 2010, nothing has been done to rectify the problem. I contribute to African related article, some of which were former colonies of Britain, and have the same or similar system to Britain. I am always reluctant to make interlinks to this article, because it is too specific. Take a look at the corresponding French article. Not only is it more inclusive (like many French articles compared to their corresponding English version), it is also short and to the point. Major differences are stubbed with a link to the main article. Perhaps that the way to go rather than writing a book on the USA appeal system.Tamsier (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone is free to add information about appellate courts in other countries. The article is far too short, rather than being too long. bd2412 T 03:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Appellate court?[edit]

How can a court be appellate? A court can hear appeals and work under an appellate jurisdiction. Appellate court sounds as if a court poses appeals or a simplified version of a court of appeal. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's the jargon that lawyers use. You may have a point that the terminology is a bit confusing, but under WP:NOR, Wikipedia does not lead, it simply follows what's already established. For better or worse, "appellate" simply means that a court hears appeals, as opposed to hearing evidence or legal argument in the first instance. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Appellate court. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)