PREAPPEAL PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED IN 13 JURISDICTIONS AS A MEANS OF HELPING APPELLATE COURTS COPE WITH THE RISING VOLUME OF APPEALS. PREAPPEAL SCREENING APPLIES THE PRETRIAL PROCEDURES USED IN LOWER COURTS TO CIVIL APPEALS. THESE PROCEDURES INCLUDE CONFERENCES WITH THE ADVERSARIES AND, IN SOME JURISDICTIONS, COURT ORDERS TO CONTROL THE PROGRESS OF CIVIL APPEALS. THIS PROCESS OF DIFFERENTIATED CASE MANAGEMENT IS BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT NOT EVERY APPEAL DESERVES THE FULL PANOPLY OF APPELLATE PROCEDURES. THE PREAPPEAL PROGRAMS EXPECT TO REDUCE THE BURDEN ON APPELLATE JUDGES, TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF CIVIL APPEALS THAT ARE PRESENTED TO THE JUDGES, AND TO EXPEDITE THE APPELLATE PROCESS BY IMPOSING ON COUNSEL COURT-ORDERED DEADLINES FOR CRITICAL EVENTS (E.G., TRANSMITTING RECORDS, FILING BRIEFS, ARGUING THE APPEAL). FOUR PREAPPEAL PROGRAMS ARE DESCRIBED: CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL, DISTRICT THREE; NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST AND SECOND DEPARTMENTS; AND U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. THESE COURTS WERE THE INNOVATORS OF PREAPPEAL PROCEDURES. FINDINGS FROM A CONTROLLED EVALUATION OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT PREAPPEAL PROGRAM INDICATE THAT THE PROGRAM HAS NOT YET LIVED UP TO ITS PROMISE. THE EVALUATION FINDINGS SUGGEST THAT JUDGE (AS OPPOSED TO ATTORNEY) PARTICIPATION IN PREAPPEAL CONFERENCES MAY BE A FACTOR IN THE SUCCESS OF PREAPPEAL PROGRAMS, AND THAT PREAPPEAL EFFECTIVENESS MAY DEPEND ON THE STAGE IN THE LOWER COURT PROCEEDING AT WHICH THE APPEAL OCCURS. FURTHER IMPLICATIONS OF THE EVALUATION FINDINGS ARE DISCUSSED. SUPPORTING DATA ARE INCLUDED.