The Re-Examination: Why Understanding Appellate Courts is Less Like a Rematch and More Like a Medical Second Opinion

I still remember the sting of my first major appeal.

As a young lawyer, I was flush with the righteous certainty that only inexperience can provide.

My client, a small business owner, had been wronged in a contract dispute.

We had lost at trial, and I was convinced the jury just “got it wrong.” They hadn’t understood the nuances; they hadn’t seen the truth in my client’s testimony.

So, I filed the appeal brimming with a sense of mission, ready for a rematch.

My strategy, in hindsight, was fatally flawed.

My legal briefs were impassioned, filled with emotional appeals and painstaking attempts to re-argue the facts.

I was trying to get the appellate judges to see what the jury had missed—that my client was more credible, that the narrative we presented was the correct one.

I was, in essence, demanding a do-over.¹

The oral argument was a disaster.

The panel of three judges seemed uninterested in my story.

They kept steering me back to the cold, hard trial record—a transcript and a stack of documents I hadn’t mastered because I was so focused on what

should have been there.

The appeal failed spectacularly, a humbling education in the vast chasm between what I thought an appeal was and what it truly Is.³

This experience, I soon learned, is not unique.

Many litigants, driven by a deep emotional investment and a powerful desire for vindication, believe an appeal is a second chance to tell their story and prove their case.⁵

But the system’s design is fundamentally misaligned with this intuitive, story-driven notion of justice.

This raises a crucial question: If an appeal isn’t a retrial, what is it? And why is it designed in a way that feels so counterintuitive and, for many, deeply frustrating?⁷

Part I: The Epiphany – An Appeal as a Specialist’s Second Opinion

The turning point in my understanding came not in a law library, but over coffee with a senior mentor.

He was a veteran appellate advocate who, in a previous life, had a background in medical ethics.

After hearing my tale of woe, he leaned back and said, “You’re thinking about this all wrong.

Stop thinking like a fighter demanding a rematch.

Start thinking like a doctor seeking a specialist’s second opinion.”

That single sentence was my epiphany.

It provided a new paradigm that has shaped my approach to appellate law ever since.

It’s a framework that clarifies the purpose, process, and structure of these often-misunderstood courts.

• The Trial Court is the Primary Care Physician (PCP): The trial court is on the front lines. It’s where the patient (the case) is first examined. The PCP listens to the patient’s story (witness testimony), runs initial tests (examines evidence), and makes a diagnosis (the verdict or judgment). They are experts in general practice, dealing with the raw, unfiltered facts of a case.⁸
• The Appellate Court is the Specialist Consultant: You don’t go to a top cardiologist to complain about a sore throat or to retell your entire medical history from scratch. You are referred to a specialist to have them review the PCP’s work—the patient chart, the EKG results, the lab tests, the diagnosis—to determine if the proper procedures were followed and if the conclusion was medically sound based on the available data.¹⁰ The specialist isn’t there to hear new symptoms; they are there to check the work.¹²

This “second opinion” model immediately exposes the flaws in other common analogies.

The most famous is the “judge as umpire” metaphor.

While it might have some application to a trial judge making split-second evidentiary calls, it fails completely for appellate courts.

An umpire makes instantaneous calls on facts—ball or strike, safe or O.T.¹³

An appellate judge, by contrast, is more like a league’s rules committee or a hospital’s medical review board.

They engage in extended, careful deliberation over the

rules of the game and the record of what happened, not the play-by-play itself.¹⁴

Believing an appellate judge is just a higher-level umpire reinforces the “retrial” myth that led to my own failure.

Part II: The Patient’s Chart – Why the Trial Record is Everything

The most critical and commonly misunderstood principle of appellate law is the absolute primacy of the trial record.

In our medical analogy, the trial record is the patient’s chart.

The specialist (the appellate court) cannot and will not consider any information that exists outside of that official chart.

The Initial Diagnosis: The Role of the Trial Court

Trial courts are where the facts of a case are established.

They are the only courts that hear live witness testimony, assess credibility face-to-face, and examine physical evidence firsthand.⁸

This is the “physical examination” of the case.

Every document filed, every piece of evidence admitted, and every word spoken and transcribed by a court reporter becomes part of the permanent “patient chart”—the official record on appeal.¹⁶

The Specialist’s Review: The Role of the Appellate Court

The appellate court’s function is fundamentally different.

It is a court of review, not a court of first view.¹⁸

• No New Evidence, No New Witnesses: Appellate courts do not retry cases. They do not hear new testimony or consider new evidence.¹⁹ The reason is simple: a specialist reviewing a diagnosis doesn’t order a whole new set of routine blood tests. They meticulously review the results that already exist in the patient’s file.
• Focus on Legal Error: The appellate court’s sole purpose is to review the trial court’s actions for “errors of law”.⁹ Did the PCP misread the lab results (misinterpret a statute)? Did they fail to order a necessary scan (improperly exclude crucial evidence)? Did they use a faulty diagnostic machine (give incorrect instructions to the jury)? These are the questions an appeal is designed to answer.
• The “Clearly Erroneous” Standard: The specialist gives significant deference to the PCP’s on-the-ground observations. An appellate court will only overturn a trial court’s factual finding if it was “clearly erroneous.” This means there is virtually no data in the patient’s chart to support the PCP’s conclusion.²² It is an incredibly high bar to clear, reflecting the system’s trust in the trial court’s unique position as the primary fact-finder.

This system of deference is not arbitrary.

It is built on a logical division of labor.

Trial courts are considered the experts on facts precisely because they see the witnesses and evidence firsthand.

Appellate courts, possessing only a “cold” paper record, are in no position to second-guess a trial judge’s determination that a particular witness was not credible.²²

This structure creates efficiency, promotes finality, and prevents the endless relitigation of factual disputes.⁷

It respects the unique expertise at each level of the judicial system.

Feature	Trial Court (The Primary Care Physician)	Appellate Court (The Specialist Consultant)
Purpose	Fact-finding and applying law to facts 8	Correcting significant errors of law 19
Key Actors	Judge, Jury, Witnesses, Parties 8	Panel of 2-3 Judges, Lawyers 19
Primary Evidence	New testimony, physical exhibits, documents 9	The Trial Record ONLY (transcripts, exhibits, filings) 22
Key Question	“What happened?”	“Was the law applied correctly to the facts found?” 8
Typical Outcome	Verdict or Judgment 8	Affirm, Reverse, or Remand the trial court’s decision 20

Part III: The Consulting Specialists – The Structure and Role of Appellate Courts

Just as medicine has a hierarchy of expertise, so does the judiciary.

Understanding this structure is key to seeing how the “second opinion” process works in practice.

The Hierarchy of Expertise: From Generalist to Super-Specialist

• District or Trial Courts: These are the PCPs of the legal world, handling the vast majority of cases from start to finish.²⁶
• Intermediate Appellate Courts: In the U.S. federal system, these are the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals (or “Circuit Courts”). They are the first level of specialists.²⁶ These courts are the workhorses of the appellate system, and because the highest court hears so few cases, their decisions are the final word in over 99% of federal appeals.¹⁹
• Courts of Last Resort: At the top of the pyramid are courts like the U.S. Supreme Court. These are the world-renowned super-specialists. They see very few patients, hearing fewer than 100 of the 7,000-plus cases they are asked to review each year.¹⁹ They choose only those cases that involve exceptionally important legal principles or where different teams of specialists (different circuit courts) have arrived at conflicting diagnoses on the same medical issue—a situation known as a “circuit split”.²⁸

The Consultation Panel: How Specialists Deliberate

To ensure a thorough and balanced review, appeals are rarely decided by a single judge.

• Three-Judge Panels: Most appeals are heard and decided by a panel of three judges who are randomly assigned to the case.¹⁹ This is a built-in second and third opinion on the second opinion, a collaborative review process designed to reduce the risk of one judge’s idiosyncratic view prevailing.
• En Banc Review: In rare and exceptionally important cases, the entire team of specialists at the hospital—meaning all the judges in that circuit—will convene to review a decision. This is known as an en banc review and is reserved for the most complex or controversial cases that could have a major impact on the law within that jurisdiction.⁸

Global Perspectives: Specialist Care Around the World

The fundamental role of appellate courts as a check on legal error is nearly universal, though the “referral process” can differ significantly.

• United States: The federal system consists of 94 district courts organized into 12 regional circuits, each with its own court of appeals. A 13th, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has nationwide jurisdiction over specialized cases like patents and international trade.¹⁹ In the U.S., a party who loses a final judgment in a trial court generally has an automatic
  right to one appeal in the appropriate circuit court.²²
• United Kingdom: The process often involves appealing from a lower court, like the High Court, to the Court of Appeal. However, a key difference is the frequent requirement to obtain “permission” (or “leave”) to appeal.³⁰ This is like needing a referral from your PCP
  and getting pre-authorization from the specialist’s office, which will only be granted if you can show your case has a “real chance of success”.³²
• Australia: The Federal Court of Australia hears appeals from single Federal Court judges and the Federal Circuit and Family Court. Like the UK, the Australian system also uses the concept of “leave to appeal” in certain circumstances, meaning the right to a second opinion is not always guaranteed.³³

Comparing these systems reveals a core philosophical tension.

The U.S. model generally prioritizes broad access to a first-level specialist review.

The UK and Australian models, with their more frequent requirements for “leave,” represent a more discretionary approach where the specialists have greater power to manage their caseload and decide which patients they will even see.

This isn’t a matter of one system being better, but of different approaches to balancing the competing goals of finality, cost, and the correction of error.

Feature	United States (Federal)	United Kingdom	Australia (Federal)
Main Intermediate Court	U.S. Court of Appeals	Court of Appeal	Federal Court of Australia
Right to Appeal	Generally a right from final judgment 22	Often requires “permission/leave” to appeal 30	A right from final judgments of single judges; leave required for interlocutory decisions 33
Panel Size	Typically 3 27	Typically 3 30	Typically a Full Court (3 judges) or a single judge 33
Role of New Evidence	Extremely rare and only in extraordinary circumstances 20	Generally not allowed, but possible with court permission 30	Only allowed in exceptional circumstances 34
Final Court	U.S. Supreme Court	Supreme Court of the UK	High Court of Australia

Part IV: The Diagnostic Procedure – A Step-by-Step Journey Through the Appeal

The appellate process can seem arcane, but when viewed through our medical analogy, it becomes a logical sequence of steps designed to ensure a thorough and fair review.

Step 1: Requesting a Second Opinion (Filing the Notice of Appeal)

This is the first and most critical step.

The “Notice of Appeal” is a simple, formal document that notifies the court system and the other party of your intention to seek a specialist’s review.⁶

It doesn’t contain arguments; it just initiates the process.

This step is governed by strict and unforgiving deadlines—often 30 days from the final judgment in the U.S..¹

Missing this deadline is like letting the window for a specialist consultation close forever; your right to appeal is permanently lost.

Step 2: Transferring the Medical Records (Compiling the Record on Appeal)

Next, the party appealing (the “appellant”) must formally instruct the trial court clerk on which parts of the “patient chart”—pleadings, motions, exhibits, and crucially, the court reporter’s transcripts—to prepare and send to the “specialist” appellate court.¹⁶

It is the appellant’s burden to ensure the record is complete.

If a key lab result isn’t included in the chart sent to the specialist, the specialist cannot consider it.³⁵

This was a key error in one of my own early, failed appeals—I had not ensured the transcript of a crucial hearing was part of the record, so the appellate court could not review what happened.⁴

Step 3: The Specialist’s Written Reports (The Briefs)

This is the heart of the appeal.

The “brief” is a misnomer; it is a lengthy, detailed, and highly structured written legal argument.²⁸

• Appellant’s Opening Brief: This is the primary report arguing that the PCP made a specific, significant error that harmed the patient. It must point to evidence within the record and cite “precedent”—previous decisions from higher courts in similar cases—to support its argument.²²
• Appellee’s Answering Brief: The party who won at trial (the “appellee”) files a brief in response. This report argues that the PCP’s diagnosis was correct, or that any minor procedural slip was a “harmless error” that didn’t actually change the final outcome.²⁰

Step 4: The Expert Consultation (Oral Argument)

In a minority of cases, the court will schedule an oral argument.²²

This is not a new trial.

It is a highly structured, timed question-and-answer session between the lawyers and the panel of judges.²⁸

Its purpose is to allow the “specialists” to probe the weaknesses in the written briefs and clarify complex points.

It is a high-level consultation, not a re-examination of the patient.

Step 5: The Final Report and Prognosis (The Decision)

Finally, the appellate court issues a written opinion explaining its decision and the legal reasoning behind it.

The potential outcomes are:

• Affirm: The specialists agree with the PCP. The trial court’s decision stands, and the case is usually over.²⁰
• Reverse: The specialists find a significant error and disagree with the PCP’s conclusion. The trial court’s decision is overturned.²⁰
• Remand: The specialists find an error but need the PCP to conduct further proceedings. The case is sent back (“remanded”) to the trial court with instructions on how to fix the mistake.¹

Step	What It Is (in Plain English)	Key Document(s)	Critical Deadline/Timing
1. Notice	Formally telling the court you are appealing.	Notice of Appeal	Strict and short (e.g., 30 days in U.S. federal court) 1
2. Record	Gathering the “patient chart” from the trial.	Designation of Record, Reporter’s Transcript	Shortly after filing the notice 16
3. Briefing	Submitting detailed written arguments to the court.	Appellant’s Opening Brief, Appellee’s Answering Brief, Appellant’s Reply Brief	Staggered over several months 16
4. Argument	A Q&A session with the judges (in some cases).	(None)	Scheduled by the court, often months after briefing 37
5. Decision	The court issues its final written ruling.	The Court’s Opinion	Can be months or even over a year after argument 40

Part V: Managing Expectations – The Hard Truths and High Costs of an Appeal

The “second opinion” analogy holds true right to the end: specialist consultations are expensive, success is not guaranteed, and the system is designed to be cautious.

Understanding these hard truths is essential for any litigant considering an appeal.

The “Pillars of Affirmance”: Why Winning is So Hard

The appellate system is built on “pillars of affirmance”—a set of rules and standards designed to favor the stability of the trial court’s judgment.⁴¹

This isn’t unfair; it’s a feature designed to ensure finality.

• Daunting Standards of Review: As discussed, an appellant faces a steep climb. To overturn a factual finding requires showing it was “clearly erroneous.” To overturn a discretionary ruling (like on evidence or scheduling), one must show an “abuse of discretion”.²¹ Both are very difficult standards to meet. Only on pure questions of law does the court conduct a fresh review (
  de novo), giving no deference to the trial judge.²¹
• Preservation of Error: You cannot complain about a mistake on appeal if your trial lawyer did not properly object to it during the trial.³⁶ The logic is that the PCP must be given a chance to correct their own mistake in real-time before you can ask a specialist to intervene.
• Harmless Error: Even if you prove a clear mistake was made, the court can still rule against you. Under the “harmless error” doctrine, if the appellate court believes the error was not significant enough to have changed the trial’s ultimate outcome, it will let the judgment stand.²⁰

The Emotional and Financial Toll: The “Co-Pay” for a Second Opinion

An appeal is not just legally challenging; it is draining.

• Financial Costs: The price tag is high. Appellants must pay for filing fees, often thousands of dollars for preparing the trial transcripts, and significant attorney’s fees for the hundreds of hours required to review the record and write the briefs.⁵
• Emotional Costs: The process is long, often taking more than a year from start to finish.² It prolongs the stress and uncertainty of litigation, forcing a litigant to re-live a case they have already lost once, all with no guarantee of success.⁵

Debunking the Final Myths

• Myth: You have an automatic right to an appeal. Reality: While often true in the U.S. for final judgments, it’s not universal. In many systems (like the UK) and for many types of court orders, you need permission.²⁰ And you can inadvertently waive your right to appeal, for instance, by accepting the benefits of the judgment.⁴²
• Myth: Winning an appeal means you’ve won the case. Reality: Often, a “win” on appeal simply means the case is remanded for a new trial.¹ You may have to go through the entire expensive and stressful trial process all over again, and you could still lose.

The high costs, difficult standards, and emotional toll are not bugs in the system; they are features.

The legal system, much like a healthcare system, implicitly discourages the overuse of its most intensive and expensive resources.

An appeal is the legal equivalent of a major, invasive surgery.

It should only be undertaken when the initial diagnosis is potentially catastrophic and there is a clear, identifiable, and significant error to correct.

It is not a routine procedure.

Conclusion: A New Prescription for Justice

Years after that first humbling defeat, I handled another major appeal.

This time, armed with the “medical second opinion” framework, my approach was entirely different.

I didn’t try to retell my client’s story.

Instead, I spent weeks living in the trial record, becoming an expert on that “patient chart.” I identified a single, critical legal error—a moment where the judge had misread the “diagnostic manual” of a complex statute.

My brief was a precise, surgical argument focused solely on that error and how it infected the final judgment.

My oral argument was a calm, professional consultation with the judges about that specific point of law.

We won.

The case was reversed.

The appellate process, one of the most vital but misunderstood parts of our justice system, can be a source of immense frustration when approached with the wrong expectations.

It is not a rematch.

It is not a do-over.

It is a re-examination.

By understanding its true purpose—as a meticulous, specialized review designed to ensure the law is applied correctly and consistently—we can navigate it more effectively.

The trial court is the PCP, diagnosing the case based on the facts it sees.

The appellate court is the specialist, reviewing the chart for errors in procedure and law.

This framework allows us to manage our expectations, focus our arguments, and better appreciate the vital, if limited, role these courts play in the pursuit of justice.

They are the system’s ultimate quality control mechanism, ensuring that the practice of law, like the practice of medicine, adheres to the highest standards of care.

Works cited

1. 5 Myths & Misconceptions About Criminal Appeals, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.nealdavislaw.com/blog/criminal-defense/myths-about-appeals/
2. Mythbusting Legal Misconceptions Around Criminal Appeals – Frederick J. Brynn, P.C., accessed on August 13, 2025, https://brynnlaw.com/mythbusting-legal-misconceptions-around-criminal-appeals/
3. Court of Appeal – Recently Posted Judgments – The Courts of British Columbia, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.bccourts.ca/court_of_appeal/recent_Judgments.aspx
4. The Pain Of Losing A Case On Appeal – Courtroom5, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://courtroom5.com/blog/pain-of-losing-a-case-on-appeal/
5. Practical Aspects of the Appellate Process | Smith Goodfriend, P.S., accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.washingtonappeals.com/article-practical-aspects-of-the-appellate-process.php
6. Top 10 Mistakes When Filing a Court Appeal – Passage Immigration Law, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.passage.law/top-10-mistakes-filing-appeal/
7. Problems of Appellate Procedure – NDLScholarship, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4428&context=ndlr
8. Three Biggest Differences Between Trial and Appellate Courts, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.fuchsberg.com/blog/differences-trial-appellate-courts
9. www.mdcourts.gov, accessed on August 13, 2025, http://www.mdcourts.gov/courts/about#:~:text=The%20trial%20courts%20consider%20evidence,the%20law%20and%20legal%20precedent.
10. Appellate Panels and Second Opinions – Insight @ Dickinson Law, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=pslr
11. A Greater Understanding – Patient Advocate Foundation, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.patientadvocate.org/wp-content/uploads/Second-Opinions-Know-Your-Rights-and-Options.pdf
12. Ethical and legal implications in seeking and providing a second medical opinion – PubMed, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18097139/
13. Justices, Referees, and Umpires: The Role of Discretion in Sports and Supreme Court Decisions – Dorf on Law, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2015/01/justices-referees-and-umpires-role-of.html?m=1
14. Forum: The Justice as Commissioner … – The Yale Law Journal, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/the-justice-as-commissioner-benching-the-judge-umpire-analogy
15. Riding the Bench—A Look at Sports Metaphors in Judicial Opinions, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jsel/wp-content/uploads/sites/78/2014/11/Boyd.pdf
16. Appeals Quick Guide – Colorado Judicial Branch, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Court_Of_Appeals/Forms/1_%20Appeals%20Quick%20Guide.pdf
17. Appeals Court Frequent Appellate Process Questions – Mass.gov, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.mass.gov/guides/appeals-court-frequent-appellate-process-questions
18. Standards of review – Oregon Judicial Department, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/rules/Documents/2024-03-20_StandardsOfReviewCOMBINED.pdf
19. About the U.S. Courts of Appeals, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/about-us-courts-appeals
20. How Courts Work – American Bar Association, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/appeals/
21. Appeals Frequently Asked Questions – California Courts | Self Help Guide, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/appeals/faqs
22. Appellate Courts and Cases – Journalist’s Guide, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/handbooks-manuals/a-journalists-guide-federal-courts/appellate-courts-and-cases-journalists-guide
23. You Must Know the Appellate Standard of Review for Your Appeal if You Want a Chance to Win, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.ostendorflaw.com/blog/?p=1244
24. 10 good reasons not to appeal – Plaintiff Magazine, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://plaintiffmagazine.com/recent-issues/item/10-good-reasons-not-to-appeal
25. Appeals – Utah Courts, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.utcourts.gov/en/self-help/case-categories/appeals.html
26. Introduction To The Federal Court System | United States Department of Justice, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/federal-courts
27. United States courts of appeals – Wikipedia, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals
28. Appeals – United States Courts, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/appeals
29. The U.S. Courts of Appeals and the Federal Judiciary | Federal Judicial Center, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/us-courts-appeals-and-federal-judiciary
30. Court of Appeal & Supreme Court – Richard Buxton Solicitors, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/legal-process/court-of-appeal-supreme-court/
31. Appeals process – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.judiciary.uk/how-the-law-works/appeals-process/
32. Appeal to the Court of Appeal Civil Division – GOV.UK, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/appeal-to-the-court-of-appeal-civil-division
33. About the appellate jurisdiction – Federal Court of Australia, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/appeals/from-courts/appellate-jurisdiction
34. How to appeal | Queensland Courts, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/court-of-appeal/the-appeal-process/how-to-appeal
35. The Appeals Process In California | Gusdorff Law P.C., accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.gusdorfflaw.com/the-appeals-process-in-california/
36. The Most Common Mistakes That Tank Appeals Before They Start | Ayala Law PA, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.lawayala.com/common-mistakes-that-tank-appeals/
37. How to appeal your case | California Courts | Self Help Guide, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/appeals/steps
38. How a Court Case Gets Appealed | The Judicial Learning Center, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://judiciallearningcenter.org/the-appeal-process/
39. Five Common Myths About Federal Criminal Appeals | FCLC, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://federalcriminallawcenter.com/common-myths-about-federal-criminal-appeals/
40. Brief Overview Of The Appeals Process – Third Circuit, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/brief-overview-appeals-process
41. Appeal in Error: Common Mistakes Made in Appeals – Corporate Counsel – FindLaw, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/appeal-in-error-common-mistakes-made-in-appeals.html
42. I Lost, Can I Appeal? – Johnson Kraeuter, LLC, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.johnsonkraeuter.com/blog/2019/december/i-lost-can-i-appeal-/
43. 7 Questions to Ask before Appealing a Court Order – Riley Bennett Egloff, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://rbelaw.com/7-questions-to-ask-before-appealing/