Source: http://www.hjbashman.com/casestudies.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 11:09:52+00:00

Document:
Ebeling & Reuss Ltd. v. Swarovski International Trading Corp. A.G. drafted briefs on appeal for plaintiff Ebeling & Reuss ("E&R"), which sought affirmance of jury's verdict rendered in this commercial case awarding to E&R damages totaling $42,350,000, including $16,500,000 in punitive damages. Result: Judgment affirmed and U.S. Supreme Court review, sought by adversaries, denied.
Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund v. TH Services Group, Inc. represented defendant/appellee TH Services Group, which was opposing a multifaceted challenge to a $7.3 million commercial arbitration award it won after the plaintiff refused to honor a contingent fee auditing contract. After Bashman briefed and argued the appeal, the Third Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court's decision upholding the arbitration award. This case was listed in The Legal Intelligencer's annual round-up of significant Third Circuit rulings for 1999.
Fraternal Order of Police v. Crucifucks presented oral argument on behalf of appellee Borders Books and Music, which the Philadelphia FOP had sued for distributing a musical group's compact disc that bore the photograph of a slain officer originally displayed on an FOP poster. The Legal Intelligencer, in a report on this oral argument, called the matter "[o]ne of the most interesting First Amendment cases to come before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals" in 1998.
Result: Judgment dismissing Borders affirmed.
Krueger Assocs., Inc. v. ADT, affirming grant of summary judgment in favor of security alarm company client by means of an opinion that industry publication described as “an exceedingly important decision” for security alarm companies. Bashman briefed and orally argued the appeal.
In re Robert B. Surrick appointed by the Third Circuit to argue in support of affirmance of the en banc ruling of a sharply divided U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania imposing a reciprocal disciplinary suspension on Surrick, the brother of a currently-serving E.D. Pa. federal district judge, based on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s earlier suspension of Surrick from the practice of law. After receiving an appellate brief and oral argument from Bashman, the Third Circuit, by a vote of 2-1, affirmed Surrick’s suspension.
Zucker v. Westinghouse Corp. appointed by the Third Circuit to argue in support of affirmance of the ruling of then Chief District Judge D. Brooks Smith (W.D. Pa.) refusing to award attorney’s fees to a pro se lawyer/objector whose objection had saved Westinghouse $750,000 in a shareholder’s derivative suit. After receiving an appellate brief and oral argument from Bashman, the Third Circuit unanimously affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
Spruill v. Rosemeyer appointed by the Third Circuit to represent an indigent state prisoner whose appeal presented a significant question of federal civil rights law over which other federal appellate courts had divided. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, after receiving the opening brief on appeal that Bashman had written, “confessed error” and agreed that the federal district court’s ruling against the prisoner had to be reversed for the reasons argued in Bashman’s brief on appeal. Thereafter, the Third Circuit agreed and ruled in favor of Bashman’s client.
Moscato v. Federal Bureau of Prisons appointed by the Third Circuit to represent an indigent federal prisoner who instituted a civil rights suit without counsel. While the Third Circuit ultimately ruled that it could not consider the merits of the prisoner's appeal due to a procedural default that the prisoner committed before he had counsel, then Chief Judge Becker included in his opinion for the Court the following evaluation of Mr. Bashman's performance on the briefs and at oral argument: "Although this appeal was filed pro se, we appointed Howard Bashman, Esquire as counsel for [appellant]. Mr. Bashman has done an outstanding job, and we commend him for his excellent legal work." 98 F.3d 757, 760 n.5 (3d Cir. 1996).
Fischer v. Philadelphia Electric Co. represented PECO Energy Co., which sought reversal of a multi-million dollar judgment entered against it in a non-jury class action brought by former employees who alleged that they had been defrauded out of pension benefits due them. Result: Judgment reversed with direction to enter judgment in favor of PECO Energy Co.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.