Definition
Review is the reconsideration or re-examination of a prior decision, proceeding, or determination, typically by a superior authority, for purposes of correction, confirmation, or reversal. The term carries several distinct legal meanings depending on context.
1. APPELLATE REVIEW. The examination of a lower court's judgment or order by an appellate tribunal to determine whether legal error occurred. This is the most common modern usage. Appellate review does not ordinarily involve re-trying facts; it evaluates the record below against applicable legal standards.
2. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW. Re-examination of an agency decision, either internally (within the agency) or by a court (judicial review). Administrative review may be de novo, on the record, or limited to questions of law, depending on the governing statute and the nature of the decision.
3. REVIEW IN EQUITY — BILL OF REVIEW. In historical equity practice, a bill filed in chancery to obtain re-examination and alteration or reversal of a decree previously entered. The bill of review operated as the equity equivalent of a writ of error at common law.
4. REVIEW OF A ROAD OR PUBLIC WORK. In older procedural law, particularly under Pennsylvania practice cited in historical sources, a second examination of a proposed public road by a newly appointed jury of viewers, authorized after a first report had been confirmed. This usage is largely obsolete.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A second or subsequent reading of a text or artifact; a critical evaluation of a book, film, or performance; a survey of available material; a periodical covering arts or other fields.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): To view or see again; to go over and examine critically or deliberately; to reconsider or revise a manuscript; to write a critical notice of a new work.
The ordinary English sense captures the surface meaning — looking at something again — but misses the procedural weight of legal review. In law, review is not merely re-reading; it is a formal mechanism that determines whether a prior decision stands or falls, typically within defined scope limitations (such as deferential standards of review) that have no analogue in literary criticism or casual reconsideration.
---
Common Confusion
REVIEW vs. APPEAL. These terms are often used interchangeably, but they are not identical. An appeal is the act of invoking a higher court's authority; review is the process that court performs once jurisdiction is established. A court may conduct review without there being a formal appeal (as in habeas corpus or certiorari proceedings). Additionally, some administrative and regulatory schemes provide for review without using the word "appeal" at all.
REVIEW vs. REHEARING. A rehearing asks the same court to reconsider its own decision. Review ordinarily involves a different, superior body. The distinction matters for preservation of rights, deadlines, and the scope of what can be raised.
BILL OF REVIEW vs. BILL IN NATURE OF A BILL OF REVIEW. Historical equity sources, including Bouvier's and Black's, distinguish between a bill of review (filed by a party to the original suit seeking correction of an enrolled decree) and a bill in the nature of a bill of review (filed by a person not bound by the decree — one who was not a party and therefore had no standing to use the standard form). Researchers working in pre-merger equity materials must attend to this distinction.
---
Core Elements
For appellate or judicial review, the following structural elements typically define the analysis:
JURISDICTION TO REVIEW. The reviewing body must have authority to act. This may derive from statute, constitutional provision, or common law writ. Absence of jurisdiction is fatal regardless of the merits.
STANDARD OF REVIEW. The level of deference afforded the decision below. Common standards include de novo (no deference), clearly erroneous (limited deference to factual findings), substantial evidence (administrative law), and abuse of discretion. The standard controls both the depth and the likely outcome of review.
SCOPE OF REVIEW. What the reviewing body may consider — the record as submitted, new evidence, or only questions of law. Scope is distinct from standard.
PRESERVATION. Most review regimes require that the error complained of was raised below. Failure to preserve an objection typically waives review, subject to plain error or fundamental error doctrines.
---
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
JUDICIAL REVIEW. Court examination of governmental action, including both lower court judgments and administrative agency decisions. In constitutional law, judicial review encompasses the power to invalidate legislation as unconstitutional.
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW. Agency-level reconsideration before or in lieu of judicial review. May be mandatory as an exhaustion requirement.
APPELLATE REVIEW. Review by a court of appeals of a trial court decision. Distinguished from original jurisdiction proceedings.
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW. Review that a higher court may accept or decline, as opposed to review the court is obligated to conduct. Certiorari is the paradigm case.
UTILIZATION REVIEW. In health law, the process by which a managed care organization evaluates the medical necessity of proposed treatment. Subject to its own regulatory and judicial review regime.
BILL OF REVIEW. The historical equity mechanism described above; largely superseded by modern civil procedure but relevant to records predating the merger of law and equity.
---
Why It Matters in Research
STANDARD OF REVIEW IS EVERYTHING. In a large portion of appellate and administrative litigation, the standard of review — not the underlying merits — is dispositive. Researchers working on case law must identify not only the outcome but the standard applied. Historical materials often do not label standards of review explicitly; they must be inferred from the language of deference or scrutiny the court applies.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW EXPLOSION. The bulk of modern review law is administrative, not judicial in the traditional sense. The Law Mind corpus includes substantial administrative materials in which "review" refers to agency-internal reconsideration, board-level appeal, and then judicial review on a deferential standard. These are sequential and distinct. Conflating them produces serious research errors.
HISTORICAL EQUITY PRACTICE. The bill of review appears throughout chancery records and equity treatises and will be encountered in older primary sources. It is not a writ and not an appeal; researchers unfamiliar with equity procedure may misclassify these materials. The distinction between a bill of review and a bill in the nature of a bill of review is regularly blurred even in historical dictionaries.
ROAD REVIEW. The road-viewer usage, documented in Bouvier's and Black's, appears in nineteenth-century Pennsylvania and other state court records involving public infrastructure disputes. It has no modern procedural analog; researchers encountering it should not map it onto appellate review doctrine.
JURISDICTIONAL STRIPPING. In immigration, tax, and certain national security contexts, Congress has periodically limited or eliminated judicial review by statute. Corpus materials in these areas require attention to whether review was available at all during the relevant period.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical dictionaries converge on the core definition: review is reconsideration or re-examination for purposes of correction. Black's (both editions) and Anderson's use nearly identical language — "reconsideration; second view or examination; revision; consideration for purposes of correction" — and both identify appellate review and road-viewer review as the primary practical applications.
Bouvier's provides the most detailed treatment of the bill of review in equity, explaining the mechanics of challenging an enrolled decree and carefully distinguishing persons bound by the original proceeding from those who were not. Bouvier's treatment of road review under Pennsylvania practice is the fullest available in the corpus and confirms that statutory review of public work determinations was a live procedural mechanism in that era.
Rapalje & Lawrence is sparse on this entry, offering only the bare verbal sense ("to examine again; to revise or reconsider") before breaking to an unrelated revivor discussion. Anderson's similarly lists the meaning concisely without elaboration.
What the historical dictionaries collectively miss: they do not address the standard of review as an analytical category, which is the dominant framework in modern practice. The concept existed implicitly in how courts described their deference to lower tribunals, but the formalized vocabulary of de novo, clearly erroneous, and substantial evidence is a twentieth-century development not captured in these sources. Researchers should not expect historical dictionary entries on review to illuminate modern standard-of-review doctrine.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The scope and standard of judicial review of administrative action varies significantly across federal and state systems. Federal administrative review is governed largely by the Administrative Procedure Act and Chevron-lineage doctrine (now significantly revised). State administrative procedure acts impose their own standards, which may be more or less deferential than the federal baseline. In immigration and certain national security matters, statutory jurisdiction-stripping provisions directly limit what courts may review.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Judicial Review of Immigration Decisions — Jurisdiction Stripping and Standards of Review (admin_125), The Law Mind Administrative Law & Government Encyclopedia
Managed Care Liability — Utilization Review, Denial of Coverage, and External Review (health_52), The Law Mind Health Law & Bioethics Encyclopedia
Interest Abatement Judicial Review (tax_119), The Law Mind Tax Encyclopedia
---