MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2529794700

A Practical Guide to Appellate Judging

2015· article· en· W2529794700 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Appellate Practice and Process · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAppealLawTrial courtPolitical scienceSupreme courtLaw of the caseEconomic JusticeCourt of recordRemand (court procedure)SociologyOriginal jurisdiction
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

I. INTRODUCTION This article is designed primarily for two groups of people: lawyers or trial judges who are wondering whether to become appellate judges, and people who have recently become appellate judges. But observers of appeal courts may also enjoy a peek behind the curtain. I write this after twenty-seven years as a justice on three Canadian Courts of Appeal. (1) I have done three studies about how appellate courts and judges do and should operate in the United States and Canada. Two studies were for the Canadian Judicial Council. Some very able and very busy American federal and state appeal courts gave me an intimate view of themselves hard at work; I also have had some part in training new appellate judges. (2) I keep reading the reforms made by the two top English appeal courts. All that has shown the progress, development, and range of good ways to run an appeal court. The most helpful approach to summarizing appellate work is to describe the work of an individual judge on an appeal court, so I will do that here. I will emphasize problems and the most effective personal methods to solve them. II. WHAT APPELLATE WORK IS A. In General A late colleague used to say of an appellate judge's lot that it's all indoor work and no heavy lifting. Readers probably guessed that already. But some appellate judges do have to travel (especially in the federal courts of appeals in the United States). And the volume of paper at times does literally involve heavy lifting. (3) In practice and in principle, an appeal court daily both corrects error and makes law. It also plays variations on those themes, such as clarifying or reasserting law, or promoting uniformity of results. One chief justice used to say that when he was a trial judge, he had been engaged in a search for truth, but when he went on the appeal court, he switched to searching for error. What about a typical state with two appellate courts, a supreme court which is supposed to make law, and an intermediate appeal court which is supposed to correct error? Even then, the two tasks overlap. Of necessity, each court does some of both. But there can be trouble when either type of appeal court fails to maintain a proper balance between the two different functions. What is the aim of appellate work? A judge on a trial court can often do much to produce or aid justice in individual cases, especially when no jury is involved. But on an appellate court, that is often harder to achieve legitimately and safely. The facts are usually fixed. An appellate judge may be tempted to tweak the law, to favor a party for whom justice in that case is just out of reach. But sad experience shows that in the long run, the effect of following that impulse often produces injustice for many future litigants. That long-lasting evil comes from a past effort to help one now-forgotten individual in his or her suit or prosecution. Hard cases indeed make bad law. (4) Sometimes sympathetic appellate judges do more harm than unsympathetic ones. Someone who wants to become an appellate judge should think about that. And someone who is already an appellate judge should never forget it. B. In the Trenches 1. Reading Appellate work is usually intensely oriented to paper and reading, and produces much less oral interaction than does trial work. That is especially true of those appeal courts which deny oral argument for most cases, those which impose extremely short time limits for oral argument, and those which draw panels from judges who live in different cities. However it comes about, the orientation to paper shapes the judges' task several ways. The first effect is vital, to the surprise of a new appellate judge. Any appellate judge must be good at decisionmaking, paper handling, and time management. Even the onrush of paper (or emails) is considerable. If it backs up, it will flood the judge and his or her colleagues. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,748
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,684

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,055
Tête enseignante GPT0,426
Écart entre enseignants0,370 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle