Legal Definitions - review

In a legal context, review primarily refers to the process by which a higher authority examines a decision made by a lower court, an administrative agency, or another official body. The main purpose of this examination is to determine if the original decision contained significant legal errors or, in some specific circumstances, serious factual errors that warrant overturning or changing the outcome. If no such errors are found, the higher authority will typically uphold the original decision; otherwise, it may reverse, modify, or send the case back for further proceedings. The intensity and scope of this examination depend on specific legal rules, often called 'standards of review,' which dictate how much deference the higher authority gives to the original decision-maker.

Here are some examples illustrating the concept of legal review:

• Appellate Court Review of a Trial Verdict: Imagine a person is found liable for damages in a civil lawsuit by a trial court jury. The losing party believes that the trial judge made a critical mistake by allowing certain evidence to be presented to the jury, arguing that this evidence was legally inadmissible. They decide to appeal the decision.

  In this scenario, a higher court, known as an appellate court, will conduct a review of the trial court's proceedings. The appellate judges will examine the legal arguments, the trial transcript, and the judge's specific ruling on the evidence. Their review will focus on whether the trial judge committed a legal error in admitting the evidence and if that error was significant enough to potentially change the outcome of the trial. If the appellate court finds a substantial legal error, it might reverse the trial court's judgment and order a new trial.

• Judicial Review of an Administrative Agency Decision: Consider a situation where a state environmental protection agency denies a construction permit to a developer, citing a particular environmental regulation. The developer believes the agency misinterpreted the regulation or applied it incorrectly to their specific project, leading to an unfair denial.

  The developer can seek judicial review of the agency's decision in a court. The court's role is not to re-decide whether the permit should be granted from scratch, but rather to review whether the agency followed proper legal procedures, correctly interpreted the applicable laws and regulations, and based its decision on reasonable evidence. The court will determine if the agency's actions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. If the court finds such an error, it might send the decision back to the agency for reconsideration or even order the permit to be issued.

• Internal Review of a Professional Disciplinary Action: Suppose a licensed professional, such as an accountant, has their license suspended by a professional licensing board after a disciplinary hearing. The board's rules allow the professional to request a review of this decision by a designated appeals panel within the board or by a higher-ranking official.

  This internal review process involves the appeals panel or official examining the records of the disciplinary hearing, the evidence presented, and the board's application of its own rules and regulations. The purpose is to ensure that the initial disciplinary decision was fair, consistent with established procedures, and supported by the evidence. While not a court, this process embodies the concept of a higher authority scrutinizing a lower body's decision for errors or procedural fairness before it becomes final.