Close

Lipson Neilson – Law Firm in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan

3910 Telegraph Road
Suite 200
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302

Phone:
(248) 593-5000

Fax:
(248) 593-5040

More Details

Lipson Neilson – Law Firm in Las Vegas, Nevada

9900 Covington Cross Drive
Suite 120
Las Vegas, NV 89144

Phone:
(702) 382-1500

Fax:
(702) 382-1512

More Details

Lipson Neilson – Law Firm in Phoenix, Arizona

5343 N. 16th Street
Suite 140
Phoenix, AZ 85016

Phone:
(602) 626-8888

Fax:
(602) 626-5588

More Details

Close

Or Search By:

Appellate Law Firm

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.

Lipson Neilson appellate law attorneys have been involved in the following published decisions:

Caperton v AT Massey Coal Co, Inc
556 US 868, 129 S Ct 2252, 173 L Ed 2d 1208 (2009) (Amici Curiae Law Professors Ronald D Rotunda and Michael R Dimino) (finding that due process clause required recusal of West Virginia Supreme Court Justice)

Associated Builders & Contractors of Michigan v City of Lansing
499 Mich 177; 880 NW2d 765 (2016) (Amicus Curiae National Federation of Independent Business) (affirming Court of Appeals decision upholding constitutionality of local ordinance)

Tyra v Organ Procurement Agency of Michigan
498 Mich 68; 869 NW2d 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 MCL 600.1901, 600.2301 and 600.2912b)

In re Certified Question from Fourteenth Dist Court of Appeals of Texas
479 Mich 498; 740 NW2d 206 (2007) (Amicus Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation) (restating factors for determining if a defendant owes a legal duty sounding in negligence to a plaintiff and applying these factors to determine that legal duty was not owed)

Nemeth v Abonmarche Development, Inc
457 Mich 16; 576 NW2d 641 (2000) (Amicus Curiae Michigan Environmental Council) (determining inter alia that Michigan Environmental Protection Act did not authorize attorney fees to be awarded as litigation costs)

Brott v United States
858 F3d 425 (6th Cir 2017) (Amici Curiae National Federation of Independent Business, Cato Institute and Southeastern Legal Foundation) (rejecting claim that property owners were entitled to jury trial in an Article III court.

Bridging Communities Inc v Top Flite Financial Incorporated
843 F3d 1119 (6th Cir 2016) (reversing district court decision to deny class action certification.)

Bill and Dena Brown Trust v Garcia
312 Mich App 684; 880 NW2d 269 (2015) (affirming lower court decision to grant summary disposition on undue influence claim and interpreting trust instrument)

Ruby Associates v Shore Financial
276 Mich App 110; 741 NW2d 72 (2007),
vacated in part, affirmed in part, 480 Mich 1107, 745 NW2d 752 (2008) (affirming trial court decision to grant summary disposition to client in quiet title action)

Special Properties v Woodruff
273 Mich App 586; 730 NW2d 753 (2007) (reversing trial court decision granting summary disposition to plaintiff and remanding for entry of judgment in favor of defendant on quiet title action)

Oesterle v Wallace
272 Mich App 260; 725 NW2d 470 (2006) (affirming trial court decision to grant summary disposition for client and defining scope of litigation privilege)

Karam v Law Offices of Ralph J Kliber
253 Mich App 410; 655 NW2d 614 (2002) (affirming trial court decision to grant summary disposition to client and defining limited scope of duties that attorneys owe to non-clients when preparing testamentary documents)

Watts v Polaczyk
242 Mich App 600; 619 NW2d 714 (2000) (affirming trial court decision to grant summary disposition to client and determining that arbitration clauses in attorney retainer agreements are enforceable)

Kernen v Homestead Development Co
232 Mich App 503; 591 NW2d 369 (1998) (affirming trial court denying requested injunctive relief in trespass action)

RECENT NEWS

The Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel is an Effective Tool in the Defense of “Settle and Sue” Claims

Roth v. Cronin, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued April 25, 2017 (Docket No. 329018), lv den on October 17, 2017 (SC Docket No. 155887)

By Karen A. Smyth, Esq. of Lipson Neilson P.C.

Can a party who attests under oath their understanding of settlement terms placed on the record and the consequences of their decision to settle, later sue their lawyer for “tricking” or “coercing” them to settle? The decision in Roth is “No.”

In Roth v. Cronin, the Michigan Court of Appeals held plaintiff was judicially estopped from asserting in the malpractice lawsuit that she did not want to settle her divorce case. The trial court granted defendants dismissal, finding the plaintiff failed to submit evidence necessary to prove that she could have achieved a better result.

The appellate court, not reaching this issue, affirmed the dismissal finding the judicial estoppel doctrine barred plaintiff from asserting an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding...Click here for full article.

C. Thomas Ludden, head of the firm’s Appellate Practice Group, submitted an amici curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court in Brott v. United States, Supreme Court Docket No. 17-712. (December 2017)

In their brief, the amici, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, and the Cato Institute, contend that the Seventh Amendment Guarantee of a jury trial applies in lawsuits against the United States seeking vindication of a citizen’s constitutional rights. They further argue that the United States cannot condition the right to seek relief for violation of constitutional rights upon the waiver of the right to a jury trial.

“For over 800 years, the jury trial has been one of our fundamental guarantees of liberty,” said Mr. Ludden. “The Supreme Court should agree that the Constitutional guarantee of a jury trial applies to lawsuits by American citizens seeking to recover compensation for unconstitutional takings of their property by the federal government.”

A decision on whether the United States Supreme Court will accept this case for full briefing should be made by this coming spring. If granted, the United States Supreme Court could hear oral argument as soon as October 2018. Click here to view the brief as filed on the U.S. Supreme Court website.

C. Thomas Ludden specializes in appellate law, commercial litigation, and professional liability. He was appointed by the Michigan Supreme Court to serve on the state’s Committee on Model Jury Instructions; the appointment is for a three-year term ending Dec. 31, 2018.

We Look Forward To Connecting With You

  • Lipson Neilson P.C. publishes this website to convey general information and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. This Web site and its contents do not create an attorney-client or any other relationship between Lipson Neilson P.C. and any visitor to the Web site. Electronic mail (“e-mail”) sent to Lipson Neilson P.C. or any of its lawyers will not create an attorney-client relationship.
    * Checkbox Required
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.

The verdicts and settlements listed on this site are intended to be representative of cases handled by Lipson Neilson. These listings are not a guarantee or prediction of the outcome of any other claims.

attorneysbarsdownloadlocationpractice