Appeals are often misunderstood as a second opportunity to retry a case. In reality, appellate courts operate under strict limits and do not re-examine every aspect of a trial court’s decision.
Understanding what appellate courts review, and what falls outside their authority, helps parties make informed decisions after an unfavorable outcome.
Appeals Focus on Legal Error
Appellate courts primarily review whether the trial court applied the law correctly. This includes interpretation of statutes, application of legal standards, and rulings on motions or objections.
Disagreement with the outcome alone is not sufficient. An appeal must identify a specific legal error that may have affected the result.
Appellate Courts Do Not Reweigh Evidence
Appellate courts do not reconsider witness credibility or reweigh evidence presented at trial. Factual findings made by the trial court or jury are generally given significant deference.
Even if conflicting evidence exists, appellate courts typically accept the trial court’s findings if they are supported by the record.
No New Evidence Is Considered
Appeals are decided based on the existing trial record. New documents, testimony, or information discovered after trial are generally not considered on appeal.
This limitation underscores the importance of presenting a complete and accurate record during trial proceedings.
Standards of Review Matter
Different issues are reviewed under different standards. Some rulings receive close scrutiny, while others are reviewed deferentially.
The applicable standard of review often determines how difficult it is to obtain reversal. Understanding this standard is critical when evaluating the likelihood of success on appeal.
Discretionary Decisions Are Harder to Challenge
Many trial court decisions involve judicial discretion, such as evidentiary rulings or case management issues. Appellate courts are reluctant to overturn these decisions unless discretion was clearly abused.
This deference limits appellate review even when a party disagrees with how the trial court handled certain aspects of the case.
Realistic Expectations Are Essential
Because appellate review is limited, not every unfavorable ruling is suitable for appeal. Successful appeals typically involve clear legal issues rather than factual disputes.
Understanding the scope of appellate review allows parties to assess whether further litigation is justified and to avoid pursuing appeals that are unlikely to succeed.
