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 our former colleagues currently sit on the Ninth Circuit, Arizona Supreme Court, and Arizona Court of Appeals.

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

Associated Announcements

• 3 Osborn Maledon attorneys named to Benchmark '40 & Under Hot List’'
• Hayleigh S. Crawford Appointed to The Florence Project Board
• U.S. Supreme Court lets stand 10th Circuit decision barring requirement of extra ID for voter registration
• Osborn Maledon ranked in "Best Law Firms" 2015 by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®
• Osborn Maledon ranked in "Best Law Firms" 2014 by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®

Associated Publications

• Proposed: Make 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
• Considering Your Alternatives: Obtaining a Stay Pending Appeal with Alternative Security
  The Appellate Advocate, No. 2 at 9, September 2010
• Four Easy Ways to Lose Your Ninth Circuit Appeal During Trial
  Arizona Attorney, December 2011
• Video: Osborn Maledon's Thomas Hudson on Supreme Court Health Care Ruling
  ABC 15 News, June 2012
• The Arizona Supreme Court Petition for Review: Art, Science and More
  Arizona Attorney, November 2012
• Arizona’s Appealing New Rules: The Overhaul of the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure
  Arizona Attorney, January 2015
• Common Traps in Making the Record for Appeal, Co-Author
  14 The Committee on Pretrial Practice & Discovery 1, 22, Summer 2006
• Citing Unpublished Decisions in Federal Court: A New Beginning
  The Committee on Pretrial Practice & Discovery, Fall 2006

Representative Cases

• 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)
• AlliedSignal, Inc., v. City of Phoenix, 182 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 1999)
  (commercial tort)
• 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)
  
• 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)
  
• James C. Sell v. Hon. Gama/Russell Sewell et al., 231 Ariz. 323, 295 P.3d 421 (2013)
  (securities fraud)
  Supplemental Brief
  Response to Amicus Briefs
  Oral Argument
  
• Bashir v. Pineda, 226 Ariz. 351, 248 P.3d 199 (2011)
  (affirming prosecutor’s duty to provide relevant information to grand jury)
• State v. Bigger, 227 Ariz. 196, 254 P.3d 1142 (2011)
  (challenging admission of calculations of DNA-related testing and exclusion of third-party culpability evidence)
• Koch v. Lewis, 216 F.Supp.2d 994 (D. Ariz. 2001) (due process and indefinite, solitary confinement), vacated as moot upon client’s release from custody, 399 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2005)
  
• State v. Botkin, 221 Ariz. 1, 209 P.3d 137 (2009)
  (statutory interpretation overturning court of appeals decision that would have required prison term)
• Kelley v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections, 744 P.2d 3, 154 Ariz. 476 (Ariz. 1987)
  
• Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Arizona Property and Cas. Ins. Guar. Fund, 799 P.2d 908, 165 Ariz. 567 (Ariz. App. 1990)
  
• Bennett v. Napolitano, 206 Ariz. 520, 81 P.3d 311 (Ariz. 2003)
  
• Forty-Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano, 143 P.3d 1023, 213 Ariz. 482 (Ariz. 2006)
  
• Clark v. Arizona, 165 L.Ed.2d 842, 548 U.S. 735 (2006)
  
• Kromko v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 165 P.3d 168, 216 Ariz. 190 (Ariz. 2007)
  
• Yes On Prop 200 v. Napolitano, 160 P.3d 1216, 215 Ariz. 458 (Ariz. App. 2007)
  
• Gonzalez v. Arizona, 485 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2007)
  
• Jenkins v. Hale, 190 P.3d 175, 218 Ariz. 561 (Ariz. 2008)
  
• Time v. Brewer, 196 P.3d 229, 219 Ariz. 207 (Ariz. 2008)
  (timeliness of challenge to decision to disqualify initiative signatures)
• Early Child. Devel. & Health Bd. v. Brewer, 212 P.3d 805, 221 Ariz. 467 (Ariz. 2009)
  
• Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 725 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2013)
  (interest and fees on arbitration award)
  Opening Brief
• Fagerlie v. Markham Contracting, 227 Ariz. 367, 258 P.3d 185 (Ariz. App. 2011)
  (contractor lien rights; reversing summary judgment)
• Roosevelt Elementary School v. State, 74 P.3d 258, 205 Ariz. 584 (Ariz. App. 2003)
  
• Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88 (2004)
  
• Friendly House v. Napolitano, 419 F.3d 930 (Fed. 9th Cir. 2005)
  
• League of Ariz. Cities and Towns v. Martin, 201 P.3d 517, 219 Ariz. 556 (Ariz. 2009)
  
• Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2008)
  
• Tucson Women's Center v. Arizona Medical Bd., 666 F.Supp.2d 1091 (D. Ariz. 2009)
  
• Horne v. Flores, No. 08-289 (U.S. 6/25/2009), 129 S.Ct. 2579, 174 L. Ed. 2d 406 (2009)
  
• Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 173 L. Ed. 2d 485 (2009), 129 S. Ct. 1710, 173 L. Ed. 2d 485 (S.Ct. 2009)
  
• Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S.Ct. 781, 172 L.Ed.2d 694 (2009)
  
• Harvey v. Brewer, 605 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2010)
  (federal constitutional challenge to Arizona’s felon disenfranchisement laws)
• Gonzalez v. State, 624 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010)
  
• Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting, 131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011)
  
• State ex rel. Montgomery v. Comm'r Colleen Mathis, 231 Ariz. 103, 290 P.3d 1226 (Ariz. App. 2012)
  (addressing powers of County Attorney to investigate members of Independent Redistricting Commission and affirming injunction against investigation)
• Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm'n v. Brewer, 229 Ariz. 347, 275 P.3d 1267, 632 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 32 (Ariz. 2012)
  (special action appeal holding that Governor’s removal of Commission’s chairperson was unconstitutional)
• Adams v. the Comm'n On Appellate Court Appointments, 227 Ariz. 128, 254 P.3d 367 (Ariz. 2011)
  (state constitutional challenge to applicants for Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission)
• Ariz. Christian Sch. v. Winn, 131 S.Ct. 1436, 179 L.Ed.2d 523 (2011)
  
• Fields v. The Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan, et al., 234 Ariz. 214, 320 P.3d 1160 (2014)
  (Arizona constitution/public retirement benefits)
  Oral Argument
  Answering Brief
  Response to Amicus Briefs
• Arizona State Univ. v. Arizona State Retirement Sys., 237 Ariz. 246 (App. 2015)
  (administrative law challenge regarding lack of agency rulemaking)
  Opening Brief
  Oral Argument
  
• Aerotec Int’l, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., 836 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2016)
  (antitrust claims, including monopolization, exclusive dealing, tying, and price discrimination)
• Markham Contracting v. FDIC, 240 Ariz. 360 (App. 2016)
  (equitable subrogation)
  Opening Brief
  
• Arizona State Univ. v. Arizona State Retirement Sys., 242 Ariz. 387 (App. 2017)
  (prejudgment interest)
  Opening Brief
  
• Hamblen v. Hatch, 242 Ariz. 483 (2017)
  (arbitration/separability doctrine)
  Brief
• Saban Rent-A-Car LLC v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 244 Ariz. 293 (App. 2018)
  (dormant commerce clause and state constitutional issues)
• State v. Fischer, 242 Ariz. 44, 392 P.3d 488 (Ariz., 2017)
  (holding that trial judge may weigh evidence, set aside a guilty verdict, and grant a new trial even if there is substantial evidence supporting the verdict)