On the design of the appeals process
Subtitle: the optimal use of discretionary review versus direct appeal
By: Steven Shavellork.
Contributors: John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics, and Business.
Series: Discussion paper -- no. 625; Discussion paper (John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics, and Business : Online) -- no. 625.
Publisher: Harvard Law School
Published: 2009
Place of publication: Cambridge, MA
Language: eng
Format: Electronic resource
Subjects: Appellate procedure
Description: "The socially desirable design of the appeals process is analyzed assuming that it may involve either an initial discretionary review proceeding - under which the appeals court would decide whether to hear an appeal - or else a direct appeal. Using a stylized model, I explain that the appeals process should not be employed when the appellant's initial likelihood of success falls below a threshold, that discretionary review should be used when the likelihood of success lies in a mid-range, and that direct appeal should be sought when this likelihood is high. Further, I emphasize that appellants should often be able to choose between discretionary review and direct appeal, notably because appellants may beneficially elect discretionary review to save themselves (and the judicial system) expense. This suggests the desirability of a major reform of our appeals process: appellants should be granted the right of discretionary review along with the right that they now possess of direct appeal at the first level of appeals."--John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics, and Business web site.
Notes: Title from PDF file as viewed on 05/05/2009.

Includes bibliographical references.

Also available in print.

System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Mode of access: World Wide Web.