An Approximation to the Standard of Review in the Chilean Civil Process
Published
Aug 1, 2023
Almetrics
Dimensions
Google Scholar
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Abstract
The present article intends to present a first approach towards the common law standards for judicial decisions revision and the possibilities of its application to Chilean procedural system, seen as a measure or threshold for deference or respect Appeal Courts should have towards the contents of a judicial decision when having to decide whether to overrule it. In this effort, the present conducts an analysis of the structure, function and content of those common law standards, mainly from American jurisprudence, expressing the relevance that recognizing their acknowledgment within contemporary procedural law could have in the design and functioning of a justice system.
Keywords
appeal, standard of review, judicial remedy, civil justiceapelación, estándar de revisión, recursos, justicia civil
References
Adrian Zuckerman, Zuckerman on Civil Procedure, Sweet and Maxwell (2014).
Amanda Peters, The Meaning, Measure, and Misuse of Standards of Review, 13 Lewis & Clark Law Review 1, 233-278 (2009).
Andrés Bordalí, Gonzalo Cortez & Diego Palomo, Proceso civil: los recursos y otros medios de impugnación (Thomson and Reuters, 2016).
Andrew Franklin Peterson, Ten Years of Pena: Revisiting the Utah Mixed Question Standard of Appellate Review, 19 BYU Journal of Public Law 1, 261-278, 263 (2004).
Carlos del Río Ferreti, La casación civil: el desafío de la correcta racionalización y iurisprudentia novit curia en una futura reforma legal, 42 Revista Chilena de Derecho 2, 483-513 (2015).
Crissa A. Seymour Cook, Constructive Criticism: Phillips v. AWH Corp. and the Continuing Ambiguity of Patent Claim Construction Principles, 55 University of Kansas Law Review 1, 225-268 (2006).
Diego Palomo & Williams Valenzuela, Declaraciones de inadmisibilidad del recurso de nulidad laboral como restricción indebida al derecho al recurso: jurisprudencia correctiva de la E. Corte Suprema, 18 Revista de Derecho Universidad Católica del Norte, 2 399-415 (2011).
Earl R. III Waddell & Tracy L. Abell, A New Evidentiary Standard for Criminal Appellate Review: Clewis v. State, 3 Texas Wesleyan Law Review 2, 235-282 (1997).
Fernando Atria, Comentario jurisprudencial. La casación como problema, 2 Revista de Derecho de la Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, 249-353 (2005).
Henry W. McGee, Jr. & Brock W. Howell, Washington’s Way II: The Burden of Enforcing Growth Management in the Crucible of the Courts and Hearings Boards, 31 Seattle University Law Review 3, 549-592, 552-553 (2008).
Jeffrey C. Dobbins, Changing Standards of Review, 48 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 1, 205-252 (2016).
Jeffrey P. Bauman, Standards of Review and Scopes of Review in Pennsylvania - Primer and Proposal, 39 Duquesne Law Review 3, 513-550 (2000).
Jesús Ezurmendia, Diseño institucional y modelo de justicia civil simbiosis orgánica y funcional, en Principios de Justicia Civil (Bosch, 2022).
Jesús Ezurmendia, El recurso de reposición: tratamiento en el derecho procesal vigente y en el proyecto de reforma procesal civil (Ed. Libromar, 2014).
John Anthony Jolowicz, The new appeal: re-hearing or revision or what? 20 Civil Justice Quarterly 1, 7-12.
John H. Beisner, Discovering a Better Way: The Need for Effective Civil Litigation Reform, 60 Duke Law Journal 3, 547-596 (2010).
Juan Colombo, La jurisdicción en el derecho chileno, 8 Anales de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales 8 (1968).
Juan Figueroa & Erika Morgado, Recursos procesales civiles y cosa juzgada (Thomson Reuters, 2014).
Juan Montero Aroca & José Flors Matíes, Tratado de recursos en el proceso civil, 2.a ed. (Tirant lo Blanch, 2014).
Kelly Kunsch, Standard of Review (State and Federal): A Primer, 18 Seattle University Law Review 1, 11-50 (1994).
Kevin Casey et al., Standards of Appellate Review in the Federal Circuit: Substance and Semantics, 11 Federal Circuit Bar Journal 2, 279-386 (2001).
Konrad Zweigert & Hein Kötz, Introduction to Comparative Law (Clarendon Press, 1998).
Mario Mosquera & Cristian Maturana, Los recursos procesales (Ed. Jurídica de Chile, 2010).
Martha S. Davis, Standards of Review: Judicial Review of Discretionary Decisionmaking, 2 Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 1, 47-84 (2000).
Mary Beth Beazley, A practical guide to appellate advocacy, 2.a ed. (Wolkers and Kluwer, 2006).
Maurice Rosenberg, Appellate Review of Trial Court Discretion. Federal Research Division, 79 Federal Research Division 173 (1978).
Michele Taruffo, La prueba (Marcial Pons, 2008).
Mirjan Damaska, Las caras de la justicia y el poder del Estado (Ed. Jurídica de Chile, 2001).
Neil Andrews, The Three Paths of Justice: Ius gentium (Springer, 2012).
Omar Astudillo, El recurso de nulidad laboral: algunas consideraciones técnicas (Legal Publishing, 2012).
Pauline T. Kim, Lower Court Discretion, 82 New York University Law Review 2, 383-442 (2007).
Ralf Michaels, The Functional Method of Comparative Law, en Reimann Mathias & Reinhard Zimmermann, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (Oxford University Press, 2006).
Raúl Núñez, El sistema de recursos en el ámbito civil en un Estado democrático de derecho, 14 Ius et Praxis 1, 199-223 (2008).
Simon Whittaker, Precedent in English Law: A View from the Citadel, 14 European Review of Private Law 5, 705-746 (2006).
Sofie M. F. Geeroms, Comparative Law and Legal Translation: Why the Terms Cassation, Revision and Appeal Should Not Be Translated..., 50 The American Journal of Comparative Law 1, 201-228 (2002).
Steve Calandrillo & Joseph Davison, Standards of Review in Law and Sports: How Instant Replay's Asymmetric Burdens Subvert Accuracy and Justice, 8 Harvard Journal of Sports & Ent. L. 1-38 (2017).
Steven Alan Childress, A 1995 Primer on Standards of Review in Federal Civil Appeals, 161 F.R.D. 128 (1995).
Theodore Eisenberg & Geoffrey P. Miller, The English vs. The American Rule on Attorneys Fees: An Empirical Study of Attorney Fee Clauses in Publicly-Held Companies’ Contracts, 1-46, NYU Law and Economics Research Paper Series, Working Paper n.° 10-52 (2010).
Thomas D. Rowe, Shift Happens: Pressure on Foreign Attorney-Fee Paradigms from Class Actions, 13 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 125-150 (2003).
Amanda Peters, The Meaning, Measure, and Misuse of Standards of Review, 13 Lewis & Clark Law Review 1, 233-278 (2009).
Andrés Bordalí, Gonzalo Cortez & Diego Palomo, Proceso civil: los recursos y otros medios de impugnación (Thomson and Reuters, 2016).
Andrew Franklin Peterson, Ten Years of Pena: Revisiting the Utah Mixed Question Standard of Appellate Review, 19 BYU Journal of Public Law 1, 261-278, 263 (2004).
Carlos del Río Ferreti, La casación civil: el desafío de la correcta racionalización y iurisprudentia novit curia en una futura reforma legal, 42 Revista Chilena de Derecho 2, 483-513 (2015).
Crissa A. Seymour Cook, Constructive Criticism: Phillips v. AWH Corp. and the Continuing Ambiguity of Patent Claim Construction Principles, 55 University of Kansas Law Review 1, 225-268 (2006).
Diego Palomo & Williams Valenzuela, Declaraciones de inadmisibilidad del recurso de nulidad laboral como restricción indebida al derecho al recurso: jurisprudencia correctiva de la E. Corte Suprema, 18 Revista de Derecho Universidad Católica del Norte, 2 399-415 (2011).
Earl R. III Waddell & Tracy L. Abell, A New Evidentiary Standard for Criminal Appellate Review: Clewis v. State, 3 Texas Wesleyan Law Review 2, 235-282 (1997).
Fernando Atria, Comentario jurisprudencial. La casación como problema, 2 Revista de Derecho de la Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, 249-353 (2005).
Henry W. McGee, Jr. & Brock W. Howell, Washington’s Way II: The Burden of Enforcing Growth Management in the Crucible of the Courts and Hearings Boards, 31 Seattle University Law Review 3, 549-592, 552-553 (2008).
Jeffrey C. Dobbins, Changing Standards of Review, 48 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 1, 205-252 (2016).
Jeffrey P. Bauman, Standards of Review and Scopes of Review in Pennsylvania - Primer and Proposal, 39 Duquesne Law Review 3, 513-550 (2000).
Jesús Ezurmendia, Diseño institucional y modelo de justicia civil simbiosis orgánica y funcional, en Principios de Justicia Civil (Bosch, 2022).
Jesús Ezurmendia, El recurso de reposición: tratamiento en el derecho procesal vigente y en el proyecto de reforma procesal civil (Ed. Libromar, 2014).
John Anthony Jolowicz, The new appeal: re-hearing or revision or what? 20 Civil Justice Quarterly 1, 7-12.
John H. Beisner, Discovering a Better Way: The Need for Effective Civil Litigation Reform, 60 Duke Law Journal 3, 547-596 (2010).
Juan Colombo, La jurisdicción en el derecho chileno, 8 Anales de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales 8 (1968).
Juan Figueroa & Erika Morgado, Recursos procesales civiles y cosa juzgada (Thomson Reuters, 2014).
Juan Montero Aroca & José Flors Matíes, Tratado de recursos en el proceso civil, 2.a ed. (Tirant lo Blanch, 2014).
Kelly Kunsch, Standard of Review (State and Federal): A Primer, 18 Seattle University Law Review 1, 11-50 (1994).
Kevin Casey et al., Standards of Appellate Review in the Federal Circuit: Substance and Semantics, 11 Federal Circuit Bar Journal 2, 279-386 (2001).
Konrad Zweigert & Hein Kötz, Introduction to Comparative Law (Clarendon Press, 1998).
Mario Mosquera & Cristian Maturana, Los recursos procesales (Ed. Jurídica de Chile, 2010).
Martha S. Davis, Standards of Review: Judicial Review of Discretionary Decisionmaking, 2 Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 1, 47-84 (2000).
Mary Beth Beazley, A practical guide to appellate advocacy, 2.a ed. (Wolkers and Kluwer, 2006).
Maurice Rosenberg, Appellate Review of Trial Court Discretion. Federal Research Division, 79 Federal Research Division 173 (1978).
Michele Taruffo, La prueba (Marcial Pons, 2008).
Mirjan Damaska, Las caras de la justicia y el poder del Estado (Ed. Jurídica de Chile, 2001).
Neil Andrews, The Three Paths of Justice: Ius gentium (Springer, 2012).
Omar Astudillo, El recurso de nulidad laboral: algunas consideraciones técnicas (Legal Publishing, 2012).
Pauline T. Kim, Lower Court Discretion, 82 New York University Law Review 2, 383-442 (2007).
Ralf Michaels, The Functional Method of Comparative Law, en Reimann Mathias & Reinhard Zimmermann, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (Oxford University Press, 2006).
Raúl Núñez, El sistema de recursos en el ámbito civil en un Estado democrático de derecho, 14 Ius et Praxis 1, 199-223 (2008).
Simon Whittaker, Precedent in English Law: A View from the Citadel, 14 European Review of Private Law 5, 705-746 (2006).
Sofie M. F. Geeroms, Comparative Law and Legal Translation: Why the Terms Cassation, Revision and Appeal Should Not Be Translated..., 50 The American Journal of Comparative Law 1, 201-228 (2002).
Steve Calandrillo & Joseph Davison, Standards of Review in Law and Sports: How Instant Replay's Asymmetric Burdens Subvert Accuracy and Justice, 8 Harvard Journal of Sports & Ent. L. 1-38 (2017).
Steven Alan Childress, A 1995 Primer on Standards of Review in Federal Civil Appeals, 161 F.R.D. 128 (1995).
Theodore Eisenberg & Geoffrey P. Miller, The English vs. The American Rule on Attorneys Fees: An Empirical Study of Attorney Fee Clauses in Publicly-Held Companies’ Contracts, 1-46, NYU Law and Economics Research Paper Series, Working Paper n.° 10-52 (2010).
Thomas D. Rowe, Shift Happens: Pressure on Foreign Attorney-Fee Paradigms from Class Actions, 13 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 125-150 (2003).
How to Cite
Ezurmendia Álvarez, J. (2023). An Approximation to the Standard of Review in the Chilean Civil Process. Vniversitas, 72. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.vj72.aerp
Section
Edición ordinaria
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.