ABSTRACT
The Johnson and Peterson cases reflect the error-correction and policy-making functions of appellate courts. In both cases, the appellant alleged that legal errors at trial had resulted in an unfair verdict and asked the Court to correct those errors. In Johnson, the Court found consent to a police entry of a home when an officer appeared in a doorway disguised as someone whom the resident might reasonably have expected to call. In Peterson, the Court honored the existing policy, enabling ski area operators to avoid increased costs that could result from a decision to expand potential liability by shrinking the pool of inherent risks associated with alpine skiing. The lawyers raised legal questions that offered the Court opportunities to make public policy. Appellate judges, then, are policy makers who choose between competing visions of the good society when they decide cases.
