Appellate

Pursuing a successful appeal requires an Arizona appellate attorney with the skills, experience, and awareness of current appellate law and procedures. It requires appellate lawyers with a full understanding of the appeals process. Our appellate attorneys bring the skills, experience and fresh insight necessary to maximize the chances of success at the appellate level.

Our appellate lawyers stay abreast of current appellate law, and have extensive experience preparing appeals for the Arizona Court of Appeals, the Arizona Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit. They also have substantial experience pursuing appeals through other state appellate courts and the federal system, right up to and including the United States Supreme Court.

Osborn Maledon's appellate lawyers often work closely with trial lawyers during trial to help properly prepare issues for appeal and pursue interlocutory appeals when appropriate to do so. Outside lawyers also regularly consult our appellate attorneys about their appeals - to assess the advisability of an appeal, to develop strategies for balancing appeal costs and benefits, and to prepare the necessary appellate briefs when an appeal is pursued. As one client observed, "Osborn Maledon’s briefs are better written and more persuasive than any I have seen.” Benchmark Appellate, 2012

Recognized as leaders among the appellate bar, our appellate lawyers' contributions provide the foundation for civil case summaries published monthly by "Arizona Attorney" magazine. Our appellate attorneys are active in the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, the Arizona State Bar Appellate Practice Committee and the Arizona Appellate Handbook Committee. They are also recognized by "Best Lawyers in America" and "Superlawyers" as some of the best appellate lawyers in the country. Over the years, several of our appellate lawyers have also become appellate judges, and former Osborn Maledon partners currently sit on both the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court.

With their reputation for excellence in appellate law and their widespread experience of state and federal appellate procedures, Osborn Maledon appellate lawyers offer the best possible support for a successful appeal.

Associated Attorneys

• Yaser Ali
• Andrew C. Case
• Sharad H. Desai
• Timothy J. Eckstein
• Ronda R. Fisk
• Eric M. Fraser
• Brandon A. Hale
• Shane M. Ham
• Mark I. Harrison
• Thomas L. Hudson
• William J. Maledon
• Mary R. O'Grady
• Kathleen Brody O'Meara
• James K. Rogers
• Joseph N. Roth
• Kristin L. Windtberg

Associated Recognition

• Osborn Maledon ranked in "Best Law Firms" 2013 by U.S. News Media Group and Best Lawyers®

Associated Publications

• The Arizona Supreme Court Petition for Review: Art, Science and More
  Arizona Attorney, November 2012
• Video: Osborn Maledon's Thomas Hudson on Supreme Court Health Care Ruling
  ABC 15 News, June 28, 2012
• Four Easy Ways to Lose Your Ninth Circuit Appeal During Trial
  Arizona Attorney, December, 2011
• Considering Your Alternatives: Obtaining a Stay Pending Appeal with Alternative Security
  The Appellate Advocate, No. 2 at 9, 2010
• Proposed: Making Memoranda Decisions Available Online and Allow Them to be Cited as Persuasive Authority
  Arizona Attorney, June 2006
• The "Secret" History of Memoranda Decisions
  Arizona Attorney, June 2006
• Preserving the Record On Appeal
  Arizona Attorney, March 2004

Representative Cases

• James C. Sell v. Hon. Gama/Russell Sewell et al. (Ariz. 2013) (Opinion)
  Oral Argument
  (securities fraud)
• Salt River Sand and Rock v. Dunevant, Ariz. 102, 213 P.3d 251 (Ariz. App. 2009)
  (standards for reduced supersedeas bond)
• Northeast Phoenix Holdings, LLC v. Winkelman, 219 Ariz. 82, 193 P.3d 776 (App. 2008)
  (state land trust/auction)
• American Greyhound Racing v. State of Arizona, 305 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2002)
  
• Botma v. Huser, 202 Ariz. 14, 39 P.3d 538 (App. 2002)
  (attorney liability)
• Cable Arizona Corp. v. CoxCom, Inc., 261 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2001)
  
• Payan v. Aramark Mgmt. Serv., 495 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2007)
  (mailing presumption under federal statute)
• White v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 488 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 2007)
  (ERISA/statute of limitations)
• In re Van Dox, 214 Ariz. 300, 152 P.3d 1183 (2007)
  
• Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc., 212 Ariz. 381, 132 P.3d 825 (2006)
  (statutory construction/Magnusson-Moss Act)
• Martinez v. Green, 212 Ariz. 320, 131 P.3d 492 (App. 2006)
  (assignability of statutory claims)
• Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc., 212 Ariz. 146, 118 P.3d 1110 (2005)
  (Arizona constitution) (amicus)
• Long v. Napolitano, 203 Ariz. 247, 53 P.3d 172 (App. 2002)
  
• Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002)
  
• Sherman v. City of Tempe, 202 Ariz. 339, 45 P.3d 336 (2002)
  (election law)
• In re: Betacom of Phoenix, Inc, Debtor, 240 F.3d 823 (9th Cir., 2001)
  
• AlliedSignal, Inc., v. City of Phoenix, 182 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 1999)
  (commercial tort)
• Sears v. Hull, 961 P.2d 1013, 192 Ariz. 65 (Ariz., 1998)
  (Indian law)
• Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Hull, 190 Ariz. 97, 945 P.2d 818 (Ariz., 1997)
  
• Lagstein v. Lloyd's, 607 F.3d 634 (9th Cir., 2010)
  (Federal Arbitration Act)
• Chalpin v. Snyder, 207 P.3d 666, 220 Ariz. 413 (Ariz. App., 2008)
  (malicious prosecution/attorney liability)
• City Of Peoria v. Brink's Home Sec. Inc (Ariz., 2011)
  (telecommunications/tax) (amicus)
• Fearnow v. Ridenour, Swenson, Cleere, 138 P.3d 723, 213 Ariz. 24 (Ariz., 2006)
  (ethical rules/law firm agreements)
• O'Donnell v. Vencor Inc., 466 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir., 2006)
  (employment)
• Paloma Inv. Ltd. Partnership v. Jenkins, 978 P.2d 110 (Ariz. App. Div. 1, 1998)
  (property)
• Dillard v. Schlussel, 2011 WL 1854978 (Ariz. App. 2011)
  
• Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Dini, 169 Ariz. 555, 821 P.2d 216 (Ariz. App. 1991)
  
• Fagerlie v. Markham Contracting, 227 Ariz. 367, 258 P.3d 185 (Ariz. App. 2011)
  (contractor lien rights)