Source: https://www.brouse.com/appellate-proceedings
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 15:15:58+00:00

Document:
Litigation usually does not end when the jury returns a verdict or the judge issues an opinion. Rather, that verdict or opinion merely marks the beginning of the next phase of the litigation: the all-important appellate phase.
The knowledge and skills necessary for success before an appellate court differ from those necessary for success before a trial court. Brouse McDowell recognizes this difference and is prepared to assist clients in holding on to hard-fought victories or overcoming harsh defeats.
Our lawyers have handled significant appellate matters in state and federal forums, both in Ohio and other jurisdictions.
Brouse has been called upon to file amicus curiae briefs in significant cases, particularly in insurance coverage matters. Whether presenting the views of amici or of parties, we recognize the importance of capturing the court’s attention and presenting concise, well-reasoned arguments. We stand ready to assist our clients when their litigation moves from the trial phase to the appellate phase.
Represented bankruptcy trustee in successfully defending decision disallowing more than $2 million proof of claim against bankruptcy estate. In re Royal Manor Management, Inc. Nos. 09-4432, 10-4321, 10-4322, 2012 WL 1605910 (6th Cir. May 8, 2012).
Represented large multi-national corporation in successfully defending summary judgment entered in its favor in a case involving telecommunications service contract. Tel. Management Corp. v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. No. 99-3132, 2000 WL 222591 (6th Cir. Feb. 15, 2000).
Represented municipality, which after securing two favorable orders from the United States Supreme Court, obtained a decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upholding municipal ordinances in the first case in the country litigating the Model Drug Paraphernalia Act. Record Revolution, No. 6, Inc. v. Parma, 709 F.2d 534 (6th Cir. 1983).
Represented policyholder amici curiae in successfully defending the “all sums” allocation approach under Ohio insurance law. Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v. Park-Ohio Industries, 126 Ohio St.3d 98, 2010-Ohio-2745, 930 N.E.2d 800.
Represented large multi-national corporation in securing a ruling in the Ohio Supreme Court that the “all sums” allocation approach applies to benefit policyholders. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 512, 2002-Ohio-2842, 769 N.E.2d 835.
Represented owner of commercial property in successfully defending decision that it enjoyed an easement over certain railroad tracks. Merrill Lynch Mtge. Lending, Inc. v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co., 9th Dist. No. 24943, 2010-Ohio-1827.
Represented automobile dealership in obtaining a reversal, with a remand for trial, of a declaratory judgment in favor of a consumer on an Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act claim. Utley v. M.T. Automotive, Inc., 9th Dist. Nos. 24482 & 24483, 2009-Ohio-5161.
Represented policyholder in successfully defending multi-million dollar jury verdict, including an award of attorney fees, against its insurers in an environmental contamination coverage case. Goodrich Corp. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 9th Dist. Nos. 23585 & 23586, 2008-Ohio-3200.
Represented dryer manufacturer in successfully defending dismissal of products liability suit. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., 8th Dist. No. 97065, 2012-Ohio-90.
Represented community college in obtaining a reversal of a judgment denying it immunity under Ohio’s Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act. Duncan v. Cuyahoga Community College, 8th Dist. No. 97222, 2012-Ohio-1949.
Represented owner of a gas station in successfully defending the grant of summary judgment in its favor on a customer’s premises liability claim. Hunter v. Lehigh Gas-Ohio, 8th Dist. No. 97546, 2012-Ohio-2392.
Represented mortgage lienholder in obtaining a reversal of the trial court’s order permitting the receiver to sell encumbered property free and clear of its liens. Dir. of Transp. of the State of Ohio v. Eastlake Land Dev. Co., 177 Ohio App.3d 379, 2008-Ohio-3013, 894 N.E.2d 1255 (8th Dist.).
Represented law firm in successfully defending a judgment of dismissal on jurisdictional grounds of a matter involving the interpretation of patent law. Lemkin v. Hahn, Loeser & Parks LLP, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-1051, 2010-Ohio-2074.

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