Appellate fruit salad and other concepts: A short course in appellate process

Abstract

The focus of instruction in most law school moot court experiences is on techniques for effective written and oral advocacy. This is entirely appropriate and consistent with the pedagogical goals of the experience. But the appellate experience is also an excellent vehicle for familiarizing students with some of the fundamental concepts of appellate process. As is often the case, the problem is time. Unless the moot court problem turns on issues of appellate process (and very few do), it is difficult to make time to devote to instruction on matters not directly related to completing the project at hand. This article attempts to solve this problem by providing students with a short course in appellate process. It explains three important aspects of appellate procedure: standing to appeal, the timing of an appeal, and the extent of appellate review. It then provides hypothetical fact patterns and questions to review the concepts. Students can read the text and complete the questions on their own, or professors can assign the reading and use the questions for class discussion. Either way, students will benefit from exposure to some of the fundamentals of appellate process.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,253

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

The Distinctiveness of Appellate Adjudication.Heidi Li Feldman - 2012 - Washington University Journal of Jurisprudence 5:61-105.
Appellate courts.David Robertson - 2010 - In Peter Cane & Herbert M. Kritzer, The Oxford handbook of empirical legal research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Appellate courts.David Robertson - 2010 - In Peter Cane & Herbert M. Kritzer, The Oxford handbook of empirical legal research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Consent: Ohio Appellate Court affirms confidentiality claim.L. Michel - 1997 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 26 (4):355-356.
Superior court of new jersey, appellate division.Pjad Michels - forthcoming - Contemporary Issues in Bioethics.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
10 (#1,509,169)

6 months
1 (#1,572,794)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references