Discretionary Review

Definition

Discretionary review refers to the authority of higher courts, particularly appellate courts, to decide whether to hear a case or not. This process allows courts to exercise judgment in selecting cases that are of significant public interest, involve legal principles requiring clarification, or present unresolved issues that could impact future cases. The ability to choose which cases to review helps manage the court's docket and ensures that limited judicial resources are allocated effectively.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Discretionary review is a key feature of appellate courts, allowing them to filter cases based on their significance and complexity.
2. Not all cases that are appealed are granted discretionary review; many are denied based on the court's priorities and resources.
3. The Supreme Court uses discretionary review to focus on cases that have broader implications for law and society, rather than just resolving individual disputes.
4. The process often involves reviewing written briefs and lower court records before deciding whether to hear oral arguments.
5. Discretionary review plays a crucial role in shaping legal precedent, as the cases selected often lead to significant rulings that influence future legal interpretations.

Review Questions

• How does discretionary review impact the functioning of appellate courts and their ability to manage caseloads?
  • Discretionary review significantly impacts how appellate courts operate by allowing them to prioritize which cases they hear. This capability helps manage limited judicial resources and prevents courts from becoming overwhelmed with less critical cases. By selecting only those cases that present important legal questions or significant public interest, appellate courts can focus on making meaningful decisions that contribute to the development of legal standards.
• In what ways does the Rule of Four influence the types of cases that receive discretionary review by the Supreme Court?
  • The Rule of Four is crucial in determining which cases are granted discretionary review by the Supreme Court. This rule stipulates that at least four justices must agree to hear a case before it can be reviewed. As a result, this can lead to selective case acceptance where only issues that resonate with multiple justices' views or those deemed significant enough for clarification will be chosen. This process can sometimes reflect shifts in legal perspectives among the justices and influence future rulings.
• Evaluate the broader implications of discretionary review on the development of legal precedent and its impact on society.
  • Discretionary review has profound implications for the development of legal precedent because it determines which cases will shape future law. When appellate courts select cases with significant societal impact, their rulings can address pressing legal questions and set important precedents. This selective process influences not just the parties involved but also future cases, as established rulings become guiding principles for lower courts. Consequently, discretionary review helps ensure that the judicial system responds effectively to evolving social norms and legal challenges.

Related terms

Writ of Certiorari: A legal order by which a higher court reviews the decision of a lower court, often used by the Supreme Court to decide whether to grant discretionary review.

Appellate Jurisdiction:

The authority of a court to review decisions made by lower courts, which includes the ability to accept or deny cases for appeal.

Rule of Four: A Supreme Court practice that requires at least four justices to agree in order to grant a writ of certiorari for discretionary review.