For more than 30 years, Lipson Neilson attorneys have represented clients in federal and state appellate courts.
An appellate lawyer handles the process of appealing a lower court’s decision after a higher court has reviewed the decision of a lower court. Appeals may happen in a civil or criminal case after trial, or after dismissal of a case. Appeals may happen in a civil or criminal case after trial, or after dismissal of a case. Appellate law firms specialize in these types of cases. They will review your case and will help determine the legal grounds for an appeal.
Understanding Appellate Law
An appellate lawyer specializes in handling the process of appealing a lower court’s decision after it has been reviewed by a higher court. Appeals can arise in both civil and criminal cases, either following a trial or after the dismissal of a case. Appellate law firms are uniquely equipped to assess the merits of a case, identify potential legal errors, and develop persuasive arguments for appeal.
Expertise in Appellate Advocacy
The appellate law attorneys at Lipson Neilson bring extensive experience and expertise to their appellate practice. Having handled hundreds of appeals, their attorneys have appeared before esteemed judicial bodies, including the United States Supreme Court, various federal circuit courts of appeals, and state supreme and appellate courts.
Track Record of Success
With a proven track record of success, Lipson Neilson’s appellate lawyers are adept at crafting compelling appellate briefs and delivering persuasive oral arguments. Whether advocating for reversal of an adverse decision or seeking to uphold a favorable outcome, their attorneys leverage their deep understanding of appellate procedure and substantive law to advance their clients’ interests effectively.
Comprehensive Representation
From complex constitutional issues to nuanced questions of statutory interpretation, Lipson Neilson’s appellate law practice encompasses a wide range of legal matters. Their attorneys provide comprehensive representation to clients across diverse industries and jurisdictions, offering tailored solutions to address each client’s unique appellate needs.
Partnering for Success
When facing the appellate process, partnering with a skilled appellate law firm is essential to maximize the chances of success. Lipson Neilson stands ready to partner with clients, offering strategic guidance, vigorous advocacy, and unwavering commitment to achieving favorable outcomes on appeal.
Lipson Neilson plays a crucial role in helping clients navigate the complex appeal process.
Appellate Law Attorneys
The Lipson Neilson appellate law attorneys have handled hundreds of appeals, including matters pending before the United States Supreme Court, the Sixth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals, the Michigan Supreme Court, the Nevada Supreme Court, the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Related Court Cases
Century Surety Company v. Dennis Prince, et al.; Ninth Circuit Case No. 17-16645.
On July 22, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision affirming the Federal District Court order granting both a motion to dismiss and a motion for attorney’s fees filed by attorneys Joe Garin, Megan Hummel and Amber Williams in a lawsuit brought by an insurance company against an attorney in violation of Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute.
The dispute arose from Plaintiff’s decision to deny coverage to an insured who had been named as a defendant in a catastrophic personal injury lawsuit. After a state court judge entered an $18 million default judgment against the insured, Plaintiff was named in a bad faith action pursuant to a valid assignment of rights from its insured to the injured party. To avoid liability, Plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit against the attorneys involved in the personal injury action, asserting that they violated Nevada’s RICO statutes and engaged in a conspiracy by negotiating a settlement and covenant not to execute after Plaintiff refused to provide a defense.
The Federal District Court granted dismissal with prejudice in favor of the attorneys pursuant to NRS 41.660, a statute which prohibits Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or “SLAPP suits.” The District court also granted a subsequent motion for attorney’s fees.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court orders, finding that:
- The attorneys established the communications at issue were made in good faith and without knowledge of falsehood.
- That Plaintiff was not entitled to conduct discovery as “[t]he problem with Plaintiff’s complaint [was] not the sufficiency of the allegations, but the very nature of the allegations – that they target protected communications in an effort to suppress those communications.”
- That the district court correctly awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to the penalty provisions of the anti-SLAPP statute.
In an opinion dated May 23, 2019, No. 341015, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed two trial court victories achieved by Lipson Neilson litigators Thomas G. Costello and David G. Michael.
Plaintiff initially attempted to intervene in a pending case involving the real property which Lipson Neilson successfully opposed. Plaintiff subsequently filed a separate action for wrongful eviction, quantum meruit, and to quiet title regarding the same property which Lipson Neilson successfully disposed of via a dispositive motion.
Plaintiff appealed both decisions to the Michigan Court of Appeals. Plaintiff argued the intervention was improperly denied and that the dispositive motion was improperly granted.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with the plaintiff and agreed with Lipson Neilson, finding the evidence presented by Lipson Neilson in support of its motion for summary disposition conclusively established Lipson Neilson’s client’s superior right to the subject property as against all others and, therefore, the plaintiff lacked a viable cause of action.
In the case of Kostadinovski v Harrington, the Michigan Supreme Court granted oral argument on the parties’ application and cross-application for leave to appeal. The Court also invited participation by Michigan Defense Trial Counsel (MDTC) as amicus curiae.
The MDTC selected C. Thomas Ludden and Karen A. Smyth, Partners of the Lipson Neilson law firm, to draft the amicus brief on their behalf in support of the defendant’s application (click here to view amicus brief.)
Primarily at issue in Kostadinovski is how a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action can amend the complaint to include newly discovered claims, while complying with the notice of intent statute, MCL 600.2912b. The Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, had held that the trial court should have engaged in an analysis to determine whether the original notice of intent could be amended or if any defect in the notice should be disregarded, although this issue was not raised in the trial court.
MDTC’s amicus brief submitted that the Court of Appeals should not have relied on an argument raised for the first time on appeal. Addressing the issue of amendment, the brief submitted that the statutory language should be interpreted to require a plaintiff to serve a new notice of intent describing the new claims before pursuing those claims in an ongoing medical malpractice lawsuit.
Such an interpretation serves the goals of the notice statute. In contrast, allowing amendment of an existing notice of intent or simply disregarding the defect should not be permitted, as the substantial rights of the defendant would be impacted.
Medical Malpractice
Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency of Michigan,
498 Mich. 68, 869 N.W.2d 213 (2015) (reversing Court of Appeals and reinstating trial court decision to grant summary disposition to client on statute of limitations grounds because plaintiff failed to follow notice of intent requirements after clarifying interaction between Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 600.1901, 600.2301 and 600.2912b)
Arbitration/Enforcement of Arbitration Clauses
Watts v. Polaczyk,
242 Mich. App. 600, 619 N.W.2d 714 (2000) (affirming trial court decision to dismiss claims against Lipson Neilson client and determining that arbitration clause in attorney retainer agreements are enforceable)
Defamation/Litigation Privilege
Oesterle v. Wallace,
App. 260, 725 N.W.2d 470 (2006) (affirming trial court decision to dismiss defamation claims against attorney represented by Lipson Neilson and defining scope of litigation privilege that protect the ability of attorneys to advocate zealously on behalf of their clients)
Legal Malpractice/Lack of Causation/Scope of Duties
Patel v. FisherBroyles, LLP,
344 Mich. App. 264, 1 N.W.3d 308 (2022) (affirming trial court decision to grant summary disposition to clients in legal malpractice claim because plaintiff could not meet his burden of proving the causation element of his claim as a matter of law)
Legal Malpractice/Scope of Duties Owed
Karam v. Law Offices of Ralph J Kliber,
253 Mich. App. 410, 655 N.W.2d 614 (2002) (affirming trial court decision to dismiss claims against estate planning attorney by beneficiaries of testamentary documents and defining limited scope of duties that attorneys owe to non-clients when preparing testamentary documents)
Legal Malpractice/Statute of Limitations
Nelson v. Burr,
138 Nev. Adv. Rep. 85, 521 P.3d 1207 (2022) (affirming dismissal of legal malpractice against clients represented by Lipson Neilson and determining that litigation tolling rule did not apply to legal services that became the subject of subsequent litigation)
Negligence
Smith v. Stolberg,
231 Mich. App. 256, 586 N.W.2d 103 (1998) (affirming trial court decision to dismiss negligence claim against Lipson Neilson client because plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted).
Real Estate/Quiet Title
Ruby Associates v. Shore Financial,
276 Mich. App. 110, 741 N.W.2d 72 (2007), vacated in part, affirmed in part, 480 Mich. 1107, 745 N.W.2d 752 (2008) (affirming trial court decision to grant summary disposition to client in quiet title action)
Real Estate/Quiet Title/Forged Deed/Priority of Interests
Special Properties v. Woodruff,
273 Mich. App. 586, 730 N.W.2d 753 (2007) (reversing trial court decision granting judgment to plaintiff and remanding for entry of judgment in favor of Lipson Neilson client because plaintiff’s claim for superior interest in real property was dependent upon forged deed)