Attorney Howard Bashman. Upon Further Review
The briefing of an ordinary appeal is a three-step process. The party that is taking the appeal, known as the appellant, gets to file its opening brief arguing why the decision under review should be changed. Next, the party that is currently on the winning side of the matter, known as the appellee, gets to file its brief in response opposing the appeal. Finally, the appellant has the opportunity to file a reply brief, representing the final step of the appellate briefing process, giving the party taking the appeal the last written word on why the decision under review should be reversed, vacated, or otherwise altered.How to Make Your Appellate Reply Briefs More Effective
From the appellant's perspective, the importance of having a strong reply brief on appeal cannot be overstated.
February 14, 2022 at 10:55 AM
7 minute read
Civil Appeals
Attorney Howard Bashman.
Upon Further Review
The briefing of an ordinary appeal is a three-step process. The party that is taking the appeal, known as the appellant, gets to file its opening brief arguing why the decision under review should be changed. Next, the party that is currently on the winning side of the matter, known as the appellee, gets to file its brief in response opposing the appeal. Finally, the appellant has the opportunity to file a reply brief, representing the final step of the appellate briefing process, giving the party taking the appeal the last written word on why the decision under review should be reversed, vacated, or otherwise altered.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Defendant's Dealings With Phila. Supplier Not Enough to Establish Venue, Split Appeals Court Rules
4 minute read
Sales Tax Class Actions and Indemnity Obligations: What's on the Pa. Supreme Court's October Agenda
5 minute read
Phila. Judge Rules $12M Crash Verdict Was Backed by Evidence as Case Heads to Appeal
3 minute read Pa. High Court Shuts Down Insurance Coverage of COVID-19 Financial Losses
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
