Edit filter log

'{{otheruses}} In [[law]], an '''appeal''' is a process for requesting a formal change to an official decision. The decision maker to whom the appeal is made may be a court, a board, a tribunal or even a single official. Generally, only the party aggrieved below has standing to appeal.<ref>Price v. Hudson Heights Development, LLC, 417 N.J. Super. 462, 466 (App. Div. 2011), citing Mandel, New Jersey Appellate Practice (Gann Law Books), chapter 2:4-2</ref> A court is used in the examples below. ==De novo vs. on the record== Very broadly speaking there are appeals ''on the record'' and ''de novo'' appeals. In ''de novo'' appeals, the new decision maker re-hears the case without any reference to the rulings of the prior decision maker, or limits on the evidence presented. In appeals on the record, the decision of the prior decision maker is challenged by arguing that he, she or they misapplied the law, came to an incorrect factual finding, acted in excess of his jurisdiction, abused discretionary powers, was biased, considered evidence which should not have been considered, or failed to consider evidence that should have been considered. Suck Penis bitch ==Results== The result of an appeal can be: :*<span id="Affirmed">Affirmed</span>: Where the reviewing court basically agrees with the result of the lower courts ruling(s). :*<span id="Reversed">Reversed</span>: Where the reviewing court basically disagrees with the result of the lower courts ruling(s), and overturns their decision. :*<span id="Remanded">Remanded</span>: Where the reviewing court sends the case back to the lower court. There can be multiple outcomes, so that the reviewing court can affirm some rulings, reverse others and remand the case all at the same time. Remand is not required where there is nothing left to do in the case. "Generally speaking, an appellate court's judgment provides 'the final directive of the appeals courts as to the matter appealed, setting out with specificity the court's determination that the action appealed from should be affirmed, reversed, remanded or modified'".<ref>State v. Randolph, 210 N.J. 330, 350 n.5 (2012), citing Mandel, New Jersey Appellate Practice (Gann Law Books), chapter 28:2</ref> Some reviewing courts who have discretionary review may send a case back without comment other than ''review improvidently granted''. In other words, after looking at the case, they chose not to say anything. The result for the case of ''review improvidently granted'' is effectively the same as affirmed, but without that extra higher court stamp of approval. <references /> ==See also== * [[Appellate court]] * [[Civil procedure]] * [[List of legal topics]] * [[Appellate procedure in the United States]] <!-- ==References== {{reflist}} --> {{law-stub}} [[Category:Lawsuits]] [[Category:Court systems]] [[Category:Appellate review]] [[Category:Legal procedure]] [[ca:Apel·lació]] [[cs:Odvolání]] [[de:Berufung (Recht)]] [[es:Apelación]] [[eo:Apelacio]] [[fr:Appel (droit)]] [[id:Banding]] [[he:ערעור]] [[nl:Hoger beroep]] [[ja:抗告]] [[no:Anke]] [[nn:Anke]] [[pl:Apelacja (prawo)]] [[ro:Apel (justiție)]] [[ru:Апелляция]] [[sv:Överklagande]] [[tr:Temyiz]] [[uk:Апеляція]] [[zh:上訴法院]]'