Appellate Practice, Complex Brief Writing and Rescue Litigation

Schiff Hardin has an experienced team of litigators who concentrate their practice in appellate and complex briefwriting litigation. They have extensive experience in both state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Our experience includes:

Taking and defending appeals as of right
Petitions for discretionary review
Petitions for extraordinary relief, such as mandamus relief or supervisory orders
Post-trial motions, often prerequisites to appeals
Summary judgment motions
"Rescue" litigation, in which clients seek our assistance after experiencing adverse litigation results
Consultation with trial teams regarding preservation of appellate rights
Amicus curiae briefs

Our appellate/complex briefwriting team, working closely with lawyers in numerous areas of law, has handled a wide variety of matters, including:

Civil rights
Class action
Commercial law
Constitutional law
Construction
Energy
Franchise
Insurance bad faith
Insurance coverage
Intellectual property
Labor and employment
Product liability
Real estate
Reinsurance
Securities
Tax
Trusts and estates

Examples of our appellate / complex briefwriting experience:

Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Williams, 936 So. 2d 888 (Miss. 2006) ("rescue" litigation, overturning insurance bad-faith judgment and establishing important law regarding bifurcation of coverage and bad-faith claims)
Home Ins. Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 164 Fed. Appx. 950 (11th Cir. 2006) ("rescue" appeal, overturning insurance bad faith claim)
State Industries, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 158 Fed. Appx. 694 (6th Cir. 2005) ("rescue" litigation, in which we obtained partial relief from massive adverse insurance bad-faith verdict in post-trial proceedings, and complete relief on appeal)
Twin City Fire Ins. v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins., 375 F.3d 1097 (11th Cir. 2004) ("rescue" appeal, overturning insurance bad faith claim)
Anchor Hocking, Inc. v. Waddill, 538 U.S. 974 (2003), on remand, 190 Or. App. 172, 78 P.3d 570 (2003) (successful cert. petition regarding constitutional limits on punitive damages)
In re Collins, 233 F.3d 809 (3d Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1066 (2001); In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1011 (2001); and In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI) (Most Health Services, Inc.), 225 F.3d 648 (3d Cir. 2000) (a trio of cases establishing important principles for management of MDL litigation)
Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp., 35 S.W.3d 643 (Texas 2000) (amicus); Temple-Inland Forest Products Corp. v. Carter, 993 S.W.2d 88 (Texas 1999) (amicus); and Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31 (Texas 1998) (amicus) (trio of amicus briefs, cited by the court, establishing important product liability principles in Texas)
McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 188 Ill. 2d 102, 720 N.E.2d 242 (1999) (establishing important law regarding civil conspiracy)
Koveleskie v. SBC Capital Markets, Inc., 167 F.3d 361 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 811 (1999) (important principles regarding enforceability of pre-dispute arbitration agreements)
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (amicus) (establishing important class action principles; we participated in this litigation as an amicus in the trial court, Fourth Circuit, and Supreme Court)
Metro-North Commuter R.R. v. Buckley, 521 U.S. 424 (1997) (amicus) (establishing important toxic tort principles)