The skills exemplified by Stites & Harbison attorneys—excellent writing and analysis and the ability to present matters in an interesting and understandable manner tailored for a variety of audiences—make them superb advocates for their clients in all aspects of litigation, including post-trial motions and appellate advocacy. The possibility of an appeal should be considered from the time a complaint is filed through the end of the trial or hearing. Trial counsel must keep in mind the need to shape and preserve the record for appeal. To this end—and because trial counsel are generally the most knowledgeable about the facts and issues of their cases—virtually every litigator in the firm has appellate experience as well as trial court experience. Stites & Harbison attorneys have practiced in every federal appellate court in the country (including over 20 attorneys admitted to the United States Supreme Court) and multiple state appellate courts. Three current Stites & Harbison lawyers have argued cases before the United States Supreme Court. In addition to the broad appellate experience of our trial attorneys, a number of Stites & Harbison attorneys focus their practice on appellate advocacy. Depending on the most effective way to serve client needs, these attorneys may take primary responsibility for handling an appeal or act as a resource for trial counsel. In the latter role, we provide strategic or analytic assistance to trial counsel. We determine whether to file an appeal and the best and most effective issues to raise, review draft briefs and motions for substantive content and compliance with court rules. We provide technical expertise to ensure compliance with court deadlines and rules. Stites & Harbison's Appellate Advocacy attorneys also act as lead appellate counsel, briefing and arguing the appeal. Experience - Republic/NFR & C Parking of Louisville, No. 01-00633 (6th Cir. 2005). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed a summary judgment entered in favor of the opposing party and directed that summary judgment be entered in favor of our client, the Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County. The dispute arose from Republic's termination of its contract to operate the parking garage at the Louisville International Airport following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and new FAA-mandated airport security.
- The University of Louisville Foundation, Inc. v. Cape Publications, Inc. d/b/a The Courier-Journal, No. 2003-CA-002040-MR (Ky. App. 2005). In the most recent round of long-term litigation, the Kentucky Court of Appeals recognized the right of our client, the University of Louisville Foundation, to maintain the confidentiality of the identity of its donors from subpoenas issued by Louisville's daily newspaper. The newspaper is seeking review of the decision from the Kentucky Supreme Court.
- Warren v. Weber & Warren Anesthesia Services, LLC, 612 S.E.2d 17 (Ga. App. 2005). Members of the firm's Atlanta office successfully convinced the Georgia Court of Appeals not only to affirm the jury verdict in favor of its client arising from the dissolution of a limited liability company, but also persuaded the Court of Appeals to reinstate the jury's attorney fee award.
- In re Abdur'Rahman, 392 F.3d 174 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc). In a case which has been to the United States Supreme Court once and may be headed there again, attorneys in the firm's Nashville office continued the firm's tradition of pro bono service by convincing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit sitting en banc that his client—death sentence pending—was entitled to have his claim of prosecutorial misconduct considered by the district court.
- Martingale, LLC v. City of Louisville, 361 F.3d 297 (6th Cir. 2004), petition for reh'r denied, 2004 U. S. App. LEXIS 7789 (6th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 453 (2004) and 151 S.W.3d 829 (Ky. App. 2004), motion for discretionary review denied, 2005 Ky. LEXIS 106 (Ky. 2005), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 955 (2005). In a case which could give rise to multiple law school exam questions, the firm successfully represented the City of Louisville concerning its right to condemn a bridge (or at least the portion thereof which sits in Kentucky) which spans the Ohio River but which connects to neither Kentucky nor Indiana. After prevailing regarding the City's right to condemn in state court and successfully defeating a federal action challenging the City's right to condemn, the City prevailed in the Kentucky Court of Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in addition to successfully defending against a motion for discretionary review to the Kentucky Supreme Court, a petition for rehearing to the 6th Circuit, and two petitions for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. The firm is currently representing the City in the valuation portion of the condemnation proceeding.
For more information |
|
