Willis Tower 233 S. Wacker, Suite 6100 Chicago, Illinois 60606-6359
Phone: 312.443.3200 | Fax: 312.630.8500 | E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Williams Montgomery & John Ltd. maintains a highly skilled appellate practice group to protect our clients' trial court victories and work to overturn unfavorable rulings. We often are retained to appeal lawsuits that were tried by counsel at other law firms.
Our appellate attorneys have briefed and argued dozens of cases in state and federal appellate courts throughout the United States. Our appellate attorneys work closely with the firm's trial lawyers to assist with motions in limine, jury instructions conferences and briefing of critical motions. We also are 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.
The firm's appellate advocacy on behalf of clients has resulted in more than 300 reported opinions, many of which involve significant legal issues of first impression. As illustrated by the representative matters listed below, our attorneys have experience with appeals involving a wide range of legal issues, including contract and commercial disputes, product, general and professional liability, insurance coverage, employment law and civil rights.
Our appellate practitioners have represented clients before state appellate and supreme courts in California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Tennessee and Wisconsin; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh and Federal Circuits; and the United States Supreme Court.
Williams Montgomery & John's appellate practice is led by partner Alyssa Reiter, who has been the lead attorney in dozens of reported decisions involving a range of issues, including secured transactions, trial error, privilege, evidence, civil procedure and tort law. Ms. Reiter has been selected by her peers for inclusion in Illinois Leading Lawyers for civil appeals. She is the co-author of a chapter on "Motions for Summary Judgment and Appeals" in the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education's Product Liability Practice Handbook and is a regular contributor to the Illinois State Bar Association's "Quick Takes" column reporting on Illinois Supreme Court decisions.
For more information about the firm's appellate practice, please contact Ms. Reiter at 312.855.4879 or email@example.com.
Partners Practicing in this Area
AAR Aircraft & Engine Group, Inc. v. Edwards
272 F.3d 468 (7th Cir. 2001)
Secured reversal of adverse trial court decision in secured transaction lawsuit involving client's personal guarantee of a $1.3 million sale of an aircraft engine. Although defendant had signed an "unconditional" guarantee, he had not waived a commercially reasonable disposition of the collateral securing the sale. Seventh Circuit rejected adverse decisions within this circuit and followed case law favorable to client.
Alcala v. Emhart Industries, Inc.
495 F.3d 360 (7th Cir. 2007)
Seventh Circuit affirmed jury verdict for defendant manufacturing client in a lawsuit brought 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.
Conn. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Loop Paper Recycling
824 N.E.2d 1125 (Ill. App. 2005)
Obtained affirmance of summary judgment for Connecticut Specialty, upholding pollution exclusions in CGL policy.
Dumas v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp.
416 F.3d 671 (7th Cir. 2005)
Obtained affirmance of summary judgment in favor of Chicago radio station owner in lawsuit brought by radio personality alleging breach of contract and promissory estoppel.
Guerino v. Depot Place Partnership
191 Ill.2d 314, 730 N.E.2d 1094 (2000)
Illinois Supreme Court held that 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.
Household Inter., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
749 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. 2001)
Affirmed summary judgment for client based upon insured's violation of late notice condition of CGL policy in environmental coverage case.
Mesman v. Crane Pro Services
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana
Obtained defense verdict for an international crane manufacturer in a product liability lawsuit alleging defective design of an overhead crane. Plaintiff's left leg was traumatically amputated and his right leg was crushed when a 20,000 pound load of steel fell from the crane. The case originally was tried in 2003 by another defense firm, and plaintiff obtained a verdict of $16 million. The decision was reversed on appeal. In the second trial, we obtained a defense verdict.
Progressive Universal Ins. Co. of Ill. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
828 N.E.2d 1175 (Ill. 2005)
Obtained Illinois Supreme Court decision affirming summary judgment for and reversing adverse appellate court opinion against client Progressive. Court upheld food-delivery-for-a-fee exclusion in Progressive's automobile policy. Court rejected appellee's contention that, because of Illinois' mandatory automobile insurance scheme, no exclusions in automobile liability policies may be enforced without legislative authority.
Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S.F.&G.
913 So.2d 528 (Fla. 2005)
Because the case involved unsettled issues of Florida law, the Eleventh Circuit certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether there was coverage under CGL policies for lawsuits brought by municipalities against a gun manufacturer to recover for costs of medical services incurred as a result of gun violence. Florida Supreme Court found that the damages sought "arise out of" the use of guns and thus are excluded from coverage under the products-completed operations hazard exclusions.
U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Clark
216 Ill.2d 334 (Ill. 2005)
Prevailed in the Supreme Court over both the mortgagors and the Illinois Attorney General on the issue of whether a mortgage violated the Illinois Interest Act. Persuaded the court that the Illinois statute had been preempted by the Federal Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act.
Wakehouse v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
818 N.E.2d 1269 (Ill. App. 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 grounds of interstate forum non conveniens precluded plaintiff from re-filing suit in any other county in Illinois.