Appellate court in the context of "Parlement"

In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, high (or final) court of appeal, and court of final appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are binding on all other courts in a nation and are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts. A supreme court can also, in certain circumstances, act as a court of original jurisdiction.

Civil law states tend not to have a single highest court. Some federations, such as the United States, also do not have a single highest court. The highest court in some jurisdictions is not named the "Supreme Court", for example, the High Court of Australia. On the other hand, in some places the court named the "Supreme Court" is not in fact the highest court; examples include the New York Supreme Court, the supreme courts of several Canadian provinces/territories, and the former Supreme Court of Judicature of England and Wales and Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland, which are all subordinate to higher courts of appeal.

A trial court or court of first instance is a court having original jurisdiction, in which trials take place. Appeals from the decisions of trial courts are usually heard by higher courts with the power of appellate review (appellate courts). Most appellate courts do not have the authority to hear testimony or take evidence, but instead rule solely on matters of law.

In the trial court, evidence and testimony are admitted under the rules of evidence established by applicable procedural law and determinations called findings of fact are made based on the evidence. The court, presided over by one or more judges, makes findings of law based upon the applicable law. In most common law jurisdictions, the trial court often sits with a jury and one judge; in such jury trials, the jury acts as trier of fact. In some cases, the judge or judges act as triers of both fact and law, by either statute, custom, or agreement of the parties; this is referred to as a bench trial.

A lower court or inferior court is a court from which an appeal may be taken, usually referring to courts other than supreme court. In relation to an appeal from one court to another, the lower court is the court whose decision is being reviewed, which may be the original trial court or some of appellate court lower in rank than the supreme court which is hearing the appeal. In other words, lower courts are 'lower' in hierarchical chain of appellate procedure than other higher appellate courts. Usually it is obligation of a lower court to follow the decision of higher appellate court, even in civil law countries where precedents have no binding power.

Some common law countries use term "lower court" or "inferior court" as antonym for "superior court", meaning such lower courts have only limited jurisdiction according to importance of case (usually decided by monetary amount of claims). For information on this kind of courts, see Small claims court and superior court.

The courts of appeal in Sweden and in Finland, also known as hovrätt in Swedish and hovioikeus in Finnish (literally 'Royal Court'), deal with appeals against decisions of the district courts. They also are responsible for supervising the operations of the district courts in their judicial district.

The courts of appeal in Sweden were the highest judicial body until King Gustav III founded the Supreme Court of Sweden in 1789. Today, these courts function mostly as appellate courts. They are the second highest general courts in both Sweden and Finland. There are six courts of appeal in Sweden, and five in Finland.

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 a 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.

In common law systems, a superior court is a court of general jurisdiction over civil and criminal legal cases. A superior court is "superior" in relation to a court with limited jurisdiction (see small claims court), which is restricted to civil cases involving monetary amounts with a specific limit, or criminal cases involving offenses of a less serious nature. A superior court may hear appeals from lower courts (see court of appeal). For courts of general jurisdiction in civil law system, see ordinary court.