To protect clients’ victories and to overturn unfavorable rulings, we maintain a highly skilled appellate practice group. Our appellate practice group also handles appeals of lawsuits tried by other firms.
Our appellate advocacy has resulted in over 300 reported opinions. Many of these decisions involve significant legal issues of first impression. The appeals run the gamut of legal issues, including contract and commercial disputes, professional liability, tort defense and insurance coverage. Our appellate practitioners have represented clients in numerous state appellate or supreme courts, including state appellate courts in California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Tennessee and Wisconsin; the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits; and the United States Supreme Court.
Our appellate lawyers are often called upon to draft amicus briefs to advocate the interests of the firm’s clients. A persuasive brief from an amicus can affect an appellate court’s resolution of novel or particularly significant legal issues.
If you would like more information about the firm's appellate practice, please contact:
Alyssa M. Campbell
Phone: 312-855-4879
E-mail: amc@willmont.com
Representative Cases
State Court Appeals:
U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Clark, 216 Ill.2d 334 (2005). We prevailed over mortgagors and the Illinois Attorney General, persuading the Illinois Supreme Court that the Illinois Interest Act had been preempted by the Federal Depository Institution’s Deregulation and Monetary Control Act.
Taurus Holdings Inc. v. U.S.F.&G., et al., 913 So. 2d 528 (Fla. Sept. 22, 2005). The Eleventh Circuit certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether there was coverage under CGL policies for suits brought by municipalities against a gun manufacturer to recover for costs of medical services incurred as a result of gun violence. The Florida Supreme Court found that the damages sought "arise out of" the use of guns and were thus excluded from coverage under the products-completed operations hazard exclusions.
Progressive Universal Ins. Co. of Ill. v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 215 Ill.2d 121, 828 N.E.2d 1175 (Ill. 2005). The Illinois Supreme Court held that the food-delivery-for-a-fee exclusion in the automobile policy issued by our client, Progressive, does not conflict with the Illinois statutory requirement of omnibus coverage. Significantly, we persuaded the Court to reject the opposition’s argument that all exclusions in automobile liability policies are invalid unless explicitly authorized by statute.
Conn. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Loop Paper Recycling, 356 Ill.App.3d 67, 824 N.E.2d 1125 (1st Dist. 2005). Obtained affirmance of summary judgment for our client, based upon a total pollution exclusion and an absolute pollution exclusion in CGL policy. Result protected client from defending or indemnifying class action toxic tort suit.
Wakehouse v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 353 Ill.App.3d 346, 818 N.E.2d 1269 (3rd Dist. 2004). Secured reversal of adverse trial court order on interlocutory appeal. Appellate Court held, in an issue it deemed of "first impression," that dismissal of a case filed in one county in Illinois on the basis of interstate forum non conveniens precluded plaintiff from refiling suit in any other county in Illinois.
Guerino v. Depot Place Partnership, 191 Ill.2d 314, 730 N.E.2d 1094 (2000). The Illinois Supreme Court held that a third-party defendant, who had not paid more than its pro-rata share, could not recover from other potential tortfeasors. This was an issue of first impression in the area of contribution among joint tortfeasors.
Federal Court Appeals:
Mesman v. CranePro Services, 512 F.3d 352 (7th Cir. 2008). Our firm obtained a defense verdict in a products liability suit involving a gravely injured plaintiff following a remand from a multimillion dollar plaintiff’s verdict when case was tried by a different defense firm. Obtained affirmance of the defense verdict on appeal.
Alcala v. Emhart Industries, Inc., 495 F.3d 360 (7th Cir. 2007). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the jury verdict we obtained for the defendant/manufacturer in a suit by a seriously injured machine operator. The issues on appeal involved the sufficiency of the jury voir dire and whether the jury instructions, particularly regarding the issues of “negligence” and “duty,” were proper.
Dumas v. Infinity Broadcasting, 416 F.3d 671 (7th Cir. 2005). Obtained affirmance of summary judgment in favor of Chicago radio station owner in case by radio personality alleging claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel.
AAR Aircraft & Engine Group , Inc. v. Edwards, 272 F.3d 468 (7th Cir. 2001). Secured reversal of adverse trial decision in secured transaction case involving our client’s personal guarantee of a $1.3 million sale of an aircraft engine. We persuaded the Seventh Circuit to reject adverse decisions within this circuit and follow foreign case law favorable to our client.
Trigen-Oklahoma City Energy Corporation v. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, 244 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2001). Prevailed on behalf of a major public utility, when the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed an antitrust and tortuous interference judgment based on the utility’s regulated sales of electricity.
On Air Entertainment Corp. v. National Indemnity Co., 210 F.3d 146 (3rd Cir. 2000). Affirmed entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendant on plaintiff’s bad faith claim and reversed award of defense costs entered in favor of plaintiff.
Whitehead v. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, 187 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment granted and affirmed on appeal for utility company in employees’ ERISA, Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, Title VII and other claims in purported class action based on corporate downsizing.
