Definition
A court of appeal is an intermediate or final appellate tribunal empowered to review decisions of lower courts or tribunals, correct legal errors, and — in some systems — reconsider factual findings. It does not ordinarily conduct trials or hear new evidence; its function is supervisory and corrective. The phrase can carry two distinct meanings depending on context:
1. GENERIC USAGE. In American legal discourse, "court of appeal" (or "court of appeals") refers broadly to any appellate court in a judicial hierarchy — federal or state — positioned above trial courts and below, or at the level of, a supreme court. In the federal system, the United States Courts of Appeals (thirteen circuits) occupy the intermediate appellate tier between the district courts and the Supreme Court.
2. SPECIFIC INSTITUTIONAL USAGE. In English and Commonwealth law, "Court of Appeal" (capitalized, singular) denotes a specific institution: the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, constituted as a formal division of the Senior Courts of England and Wales. It sits in Civil and Criminal Divisions and exercises appellate jurisdiction over the High Court, the Crown Court, and certain tribunals.
---
Common Language
Wiktionary: "An appellate court."
The common definition is accurate as far as it goes but collapses an important institutional distinction. In everyday and journalistic usage, "court of appeal" functions as a generic noun meaning any court that hears appeals. In legal research, the same phrase can refer to a precisely constituted statutory institution — particularly in English and Commonwealth jurisdictions — with a defined composition, jurisdictional scope, and procedural rules that differ meaningfully from the generic category. A researcher who treats every reference to a "court of appeal" as merely meaning "some appellate body" will miss the institutional specificity when the term appears in English legal sources.
---
Common Confusion
COURT OF APPEAL vs. COURT OF APPEALS: American federal practice uses "Court of Appeals" (plural) for the circuit courts; many states use the singular. The distinction is stylistic and jurisdictional, not substantive — but it matters for citation accuracy and for locating the correct court's decisions in a database. Researchers should not assume that "Court of Appeal" in a source necessarily refers to the English institution rather than a state court using the singular form.
APPELLATE COURT vs. COURT OF APPEAL: All courts of appeal are appellate courts, but not all appellate courts are denominated courts of appeal. Supreme courts, the Court of International Trade on appeal, and certain specialized review panels exercise appellate jurisdiction without carrying the "court of appeal" label. The terms are not interchangeable when precision matters.
---
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
English Court of Appeal — Civil Division: Hears appeals from the High Court and certain county court decisions in civil matters. The Master of the Rolls presides.
English Court of Appeal — Criminal Division: Hears appeals from the Crown Court in criminal matters. The Lord Chief Justice presides.
United States Courts of Appeals (Federal Circuits): Thirteen circuits (First through Eleventh, D.C. Circuit, and Federal Circuit) exercising intermediate appellate jurisdiction over federal district courts and many administrative agencies.
State Courts of Appeal: Intermediate appellate courts in most U.S. states, positioned between trial courts and a state supreme court. Nomenclature varies: "Court of Appeals" (New York, Michigan), "Court of Appeal" (California), "Appellate Court" (Illinois), among others.
Specialized Appellate Tribunals: Courts exercising appellate jurisdiction within a defined subject-matter domain — the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) in the military justice system, for example, or the appellate tier of the Tax Court framework — operate as courts of appeal in function without always carrying that formal title.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The phrase "court of appeal" is a false friend across jurisdictions and time periods. In nineteenth-century English sources — including both Black's and Bouvier's — references to the Court of Appeal describe the specific English institution constituted under the Judicature Acts of 1873–1875, which consolidated and restructured appellate jurisdiction previously scattered across multiple courts. When Bouvier's describes the court's composition (Lord Chancellor, Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, Lords Justices of Appeal, and others), it is describing that statutory body, not a generic principle. Researchers using nineteenth-century treatises or case reports need to identify which court is actually being discussed before drawing procedural or doctrinal inferences.
In American sources, the terminology shifted and multiplied over the same period. Federal circuit courts initially exercised both original and appellate jurisdiction; the modern Courts of Appeals as purely appellate bodies date from the Evarts Act of 1891. State appellate structures were reorganized throughout the twentieth century. A "court of appeal" decision from an 1870 state source may have been rendered by a court with a very different jurisdictional scope than a modern court bearing the same name.
For researchers working in the Law Mind corpus: military justice appeals follow a distinct hierarchical structure — from service courts of criminal appeals to CAAF to the Supreme Court — that parallels but does not replicate the civilian appellate structure. Tax appeals similarly bifurcate depending on whether a taxpayer litigates through the Tax Court or through refund suits in district courts, leading to review in different circuits. Do not assume a single appellate pathway.
The Black's entry fragment in the source material is truncated (the full entry for "Court of Appeal, Her Majesty's" is cut off), which is itself a research caution: abbreviated entries in historical dictionaries sometimes omit jurisdictional limits, compositional changes, or statutory amendments that materially affect how the court functioned at a given time.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both Black's and Bouvier's treat "Court of Appeal" primarily as the English institution, reflecting the dominant legal reference point of the late nineteenth century when both dictionaries were compiled in authoritative form. Bouvier's is the more descriptive of the two, detailing the court's statutory composition under the English Judicature Acts — identifying the Lord Chancellor, Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, Lords Justices of Appeal, and the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division as constituent members. This compositional detail is instructive for researchers dating English appellate decisions: the court's membership and divisional structure evolved through the twentieth century and into the present era (the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 significantly altered the Lord Chancellor's judicial role, and the creation of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in 2009 removed the Law Lords from Parliament).
Black's entry, though fragmentary in the source material here, historically covered both the English Court of Appeal and noted American appellate court structures, but without the compositional granularity Bouvier's provides for the English body. Neither dictionary adequately addresses the American federal circuit court system as it exists post-1891, and neither anticipates specialized appellate tribunals like CAAF or the modern Tax Court appellate pathway — gaps that are entirely predictable given their publication dates but that researchers must fill from other sources.
---
Jurisdictional Note
In England and Wales, the Court of Appeal is a single institution with defined statutory composition; its decisions bind all lower courts in the jurisdiction. In the United States, "court of appeal" is a category, not a single institution — thirteen federal circuits and dozens of state appellate courts operate under that label, and their decisions bind only within their respective jurisdictions. A California Court of Appeal decision does not bind a New York court, and a Fifth Circuit decision does not bind the Ninth. Researchers must always identify the specific court and jurisdiction before treating any appellate decision as authoritative precedent.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Military Appeals — Service Courts of Criminal Appeals, CAAF, and Supreme Court Review (The Law Mind Military, Veterans & Admiralty Law Encyclopedia)
Tax Court Appeals to Circuit Courts (The Law Mind Tax Encyclopedia)
---