Definition
A writ of review is a general appellate process issued by a higher court to bring up for examination the record or decision of a lower court. The term is not the name of a single specific writ but rather a broad descriptive category — an umbrella label covering any writ whose function is to place proceedings from below before a reviewing court.
In this sense, the writ of review operates as a genus, with specific writs (certiorari, mandamus used in an appellate posture, writ of error, and others) serving as its species. Where a jurisdiction has abolished or never adopted the common-law writ of error, "writ of review" sometimes appears in statutes or court rules as the operative term for the mechanism by which a lower court's judgment is brought before an appellate court for scrutiny.
---
Common Confusion
WRIT OF REVIEW vs. CERTIORARI vs. WRIT OF ERROR: These three terms are frequently encountered in the same research contexts and are easy to conflate. A writ of error was the traditional common-law mechanism to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record; it was largely abolished in federal practice by the 1928 Act and superseded by appeal as of right. Certiorari is a discretionary writ by which a higher court calls up a lower court's record, now the standard vehicle for Supreme Court review. The writ of review, by contrast, is neither of these specifically — it is a functional descriptor that, depending on the jurisdiction and era, may refer to either, or to a statutory equivalent. Researchers who encounter "writ of review" in older state court opinions must determine from context which specific procedural mechanism the court actually employed.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The writ of review is one of those terms that functions differently depending on whether you encounter it in a historical source, a state statute, or a federal court opinion — and getting that distinction wrong will derail a research trail quickly.
In historical sources, "writ of review" is often used loosely as shorthand for whatever appellate process existed in that court at that time. Nineteenth-century state court opinions may use it interchangeably with writ of error, certiorari, or a statutory review mechanism without defining their terms. Researchers working in pre-twentieth-century state materials should treat the phrase as a flag to stop and identify the actual procedural vehicle before drawing conclusions about the scope or standard of review applied.
In certain states — notably Oregon — "writ of review" became a term of art in statutory appellate procedure, codified as a distinct mechanism for reviewing the acts of inferior tribunals where no direct appeal was available. Oregon's writ of review statute (historically codified in its civil procedure statutes) filled the role that certiorari plays in other jurisdictions, but the two are not identical in scope or operation. Researchers working with Oregon materials in particular should not assume that general certiorari doctrine maps cleanly onto Oregon writ-of-review cases.
The corpus connections here are significant. Materials on extraordinary writs, habeas corpus, and appellate jurisdiction will frequently invoke writ of review terminology, especially in discussions of the historical development of review mechanisms. Because the term sits at the intersection of common-law writ practice and statutory appellate reform, it appears across criminal, civil, and constitutional materials without always being used consistently. When a historical source uses "writ of review," ask: Is this a descriptive label or a term of art? Is the court distinguishing it from certiorari, or treating them as synonymous? What standard of review did the issuing court apply?
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) defines the writ of review as "a general designation of any form of process issuing from an appellate court and intended to bring up for review the record or decision of the court below." This definition is notable for its deliberate breadth — Black's treats the term as a category rather than a specific writ, which accurately captures how courts used it in practice.
The cases Black's cites (Burrell v. Burrell, Hopkins v. Benson, West v. De Moss) span Massachusetts, Maine, and Louisiana, suggesting the term circulated across different regional legal traditions without acquiring a uniform technical meaning in any of them. This is precisely what a researcher should expect: the writ of review was a convenient shorthand, not a standardized procedure.
What the historical dictionaries do not address is the statutory development that occurred in several states during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when legislatures codified "writ of review" as a named procedure. That development transformed the term from a descriptive label into an operative legal mechanism in certain jurisdictions — a shift that Black's 2nd edition, reflecting its era, does not capture. Later editions and state-specific practice guides are necessary to trace that evolution.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Oregon gave the writ of review specific statutory content, using it as the primary mechanism to review the decisions of inferior courts and tribunals not directly appealable — a role analogous to common-law certiorari but with distinct procedural requirements. In most other American jurisdictions, the term is either archaic, purely descriptive, or has been absorbed into statutory appeals practice without surviving as a named writ.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Coram Nobis and Other Extraordinary Writs (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia)
Extraordinary Writs and Habeas Corpus — 28 USC 2241–2255 (The Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia)
Habeas Corpus — The Great Writ and Suspension Clause (The Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia)
---