Sussman Shank's Appellate Group handles appeals in a broad range of areas, including commercial litigation, employment, construction, arbitration, and constitutional law. Our appellate lawyers have appeared in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and in the state appellate courts of Oregon, Washington, and California. 

Our group has extensive experience evaluating claims on appeal. This experience, coupled with adept written and oral advocacy, allows us to frame and present the key legal issues in the most effective and persuasive manner possible.

In addition to representing parties on appeal, our appellate lawyers can provide advice to trial counsel and their clients before and during trial to perfect and protect the record for any potential appeal.

Representative Cases

Graham et. al v. Sunset Hills Memorial Park Oregon Court of Appeals, Case No. A148685
We represent the respondent/defendant in an appeal of the trial court's granting of our motion dismissing the case.  Our client is the second largest "death care" service provider in the country, with over 218 funeral homes and 140 cemeteries.  The lawsuit was filed by six adult siblings who alleged that, as a result of our client's mishandling of their mother's remains at a cemetery in Portland, they suffered $9 million in emotional distress damages.   

Jensen v. Duboff, 253 Or. App. 517, 291 P.2d 738 (2012)
We represented the respondent/defendant in an appeal of the trial court's granting of our motion dismissing the case.  The plaintiff alleged breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligence, and sought over $1.8 million in damages.  The issue on appeal was whether the trial court abused its discretion when it granted our Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. 

Classic Painting, Inc. v. Willamette Builders Group at Stoneway, LLC, 235 Or. App. 572, 233 P.3d 827 (2010)
We were co-counsel for the appellant in a case of first impression in Oregon.  We sought the court's interpretation of the interplay between a lien claimant's entitlement to its attorneys fees and costs under the statute versus the reasonableness of those fees and costs pursuant to ORCP 68.

The Erection Company, Inc. v. W&W Steel, LLC, Case No. 11-35949 (9th Cir 2013)
We represented a construction contractor in a Ninth Circuit appeal in which client claimed a contract was executed by the actions of the parties when defendant claimed no contract existed.

Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLP 193 Cal.App.4th 435 (2011)
We represented a law firm in an appeal of the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion.  The case concerned the extent to which the First Amendment protects the conduct of law firms and litigants in the course of litigation.

American Bar Association v. Federal Trade Commission, Case No. 10-5057 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
We represented the ABA in a lawsuit against the FTC to prevent it from implementing a privacy rule that would have imposed significant requirements on attorneys engaged in the practice of law.  The ABA prevailed on summary judgment.  During appellate briefing, Congress changed the applicable law in response to the lawsuit.

In re Marriage Cases 43 Cal.4th 757, 183 P.3d 384 (2008) 
We were counsel of record on behalf of the Anti-Defamation League as amicus curiae in California's marriage equality litigation.

Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Munchnick, 559 U.S.154 (2010)
We represented the plaintiff in this case in which the Supreme Court held that copyright registration is not a jurisdictional defect that prevents federal courts from conditionally certifying a class for settlement purposes. 

Adair Homes, Inc. v. Kasey Butler, Washington Court of Appeals, Division II, Case No. 40525-3-II (2011)
We represented a Washington homebuilder in a lawsuit filed against a real estate investor for breach of promissory note and the judicial foreclosure of the trust deed that secured the note.  The defendant investor attempted to avoid liability for his obligations by asserting Washington Consumer Protection Act counterclaims against our client.  At the trial court, we prevailed on a motion for summary judgment granting the client's claims against the investor and defeating the investor's Consumer Protection Act counterclaims.  The investor appealed the trial court's rulings. On the appeal, we decisively defeated the investor's complex Consumer Protection Act arguments and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings.

Return to Practice Area