| dbo:abstract |
Discretionary review is the authority appellate courts have 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. The opposite of discretionary review is any review mandated by statute, which guides appellate courts about what they can and cannot do during the review process. 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. (en) 自由裁定的複審（discretionary review；酌情複審；酌情審查）是上訴法院必須決定在提交給他們的上訴案件中哪些是可以被考慮處理的。這為司法機構提供了對上訴案件類型的過濾，因為法官必須事先考慮哪些案件將被接受。然後，上訴法院將能夠以最低的機會成本來決定比較實質性需要處理的案件。 與自由裁定的複審相反的是(Mandantory review；強制複審；強制審查)，上訴法院必須審議所有提交的上訴。 自由裁定的複審的優勢在於，它使上訴法院能夠將其有限的資源集中用於制定一致的判例法，或者至少能夠集中精力以一致的方式作出決策（在不承認判例法的司法管轄區） 。缺點是它降低了訴訟當事人尋求審查下級法院錯誤判決的能力。然而，允許在所有上訴級別的上訴權利之問題能夠被處理，即它鼓勵當事人利用法院系統各級別的每一個技術性錯誤作為進一步複審的依據。自由裁定的複審能夠迫使各方始終集中司法資源說服(一審法院)在第一時間做到正確（不是假設上訴法院將“稍後修正”）的判決，從而提高司法系統的整體效率。當然，這也使得他們受到初審法院自由裁定權的支配。 (zh) |
| dbo:wikiPageID |
1461682 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageLength |
7148 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger) |
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID |
1058764324 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink |
dbr:Precedent dbr:Public_interest dbr:Pro_forma dbr:Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbc:Appellate_review dbr:Constitution_of_Ireland dbr:Thirty-third_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland dbr:Appeal dbr:Appellate_court dbr:State_court_(United_States) dbr:U.S._Congress dbr:U.S._state dbr:North_Carolina dbr:Capital_punishment_in_Texas dbr:Judiciary_Act_of_1925 dbr:Legal_case dbr:Opportunity_cost dbr:Court_of_Appeal_(Ireland) dbr:Texas dbr:Texas_Court_of_Criminal_Appeals dbr:Texas_Courts_of_Appeals dbr:Supreme_Court_Case_Selections_Act dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:High_Court_(Ireland) dbr:Writ dbr:Case_law dbr:Certiorari dbr:European_Convention_on_Human_Rights dbr:United_States_courts_of_appeals dbr:Supreme_Court_(Ireland) dbr:European_Commission_on_Human_Rights dbr:Wikt:commonweal |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate |
dbt:Further dbt:Reflist |
| dct:subject |
dbc:Appellate_review |
| gold:hypernym |
dbr:Courts |
| rdf:type |
dbo:ArchitecturalStructure |
| rdfs:comment |
自由裁定的複審（discretionary review；酌情複審；酌情審查）是上訴法院必須決定在提交給他們的上訴案件中哪些是可以被考慮處理的。這為司法機構提供了對上訴案件類型的過濾，因為法官必須事先考慮哪些案件將被接受。然後，上訴法院將能夠以最低的機會成本來決定比較實質性需要處理的案件。 與自由裁定的複審相反的是(Mandantory review；強制複審；強制審查)，上訴法院必須審議所有提交的上訴。 自由裁定的複審的優勢在於，它使上訴法院能夠將其有限的資源集中用於制定一致的判例法，或者至少能夠集中精力以一致的方式作出決策（在不承認判例法的司法管轄區） 。缺點是它降低了訴訟當事人尋求審查下級法院錯誤判決的能力。然而，允許在所有上訴級別的上訴權利之問題能夠被處理，即它鼓勵當事人利用法院系統各級別的每一個技術性錯誤作為進一步複審的依據。自由裁定的複審能夠迫使各方始終集中司法資源說服(一審法院)在第一時間做到正確（不是假設上訴法院將“稍後修正”）的判決，從而提高司法系統的整體效率。當然，這也使得他們受到初審法院自由裁定權的支配。 (zh) Discretionary review is the authority appellate courts have 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. The opposite of discretionary review is any review mandated by statute, which guides appellate courts about what they can and cannot do during the review process. (en) |
| rdfs:label |
Discretionary review (en) 自由裁定的複審 (zh) |
| owl:sameAs |
freebase:Discretionary review wikidata:Discretionary review dbpedia-zh:Discretionary review https://global.dbpedia.org/id/4irHe |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom |
wikipedia-en:Discretionary_review?oldid=1058764324&ns=0 |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf |
wikipedia-en:Discretionary_review |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of |
dbr:Peter_J._Messitte dbr:Court_of_Cassation_(Belgium) dbr:Minnesota_Court_of_Appeals dbr:Appellate_court dbr:Will_v._Michigan_Department_of_State_Police dbr:Ed_Forchion dbr:Padilla_v._Kentucky dbr:Judiciary_of_Colorado dbr:Military_discharge dbr:Supreme_Court_of_Canada dbr:Supreme_Court_of_Pennsylvania dbr:Certiorari |
| is foaf:primaryTopic of |
wikipedia-en:Discretionary_review |