Menu

Practice Areas

Appellate

Osborn Maledon’s appellate lawyers handle the most important appeals in Arizona.  They have decades of experience handling cases spanning from constitutional law to appeals from jury trials.  They regularly appear before the Ninth Circuit, the Arizona Supreme Court, and the Arizona Court of Appeals, and have substantial experience in the United States Supreme Court.

Our appellate lawyers are recognized as leaders among the appellate bar.  They author the monthly “Appellate Highlights” column in Arizona Attorney magazine and are active in the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, the Arizona State Bar Appellate Practice Section, and the Arizona Appellate Handbook Committee. Each year, they chair the Bar’s programming featuring the Arizona Supreme Court and the Arizona Court of appeals—events that bring together justices, judges, top government lawyers, court staff, and appellate practitioners.

They are also recognized by Chambers and Partners, Benchmark Litigation, Best Lawyers in America, and Super Lawyers as some of the best appellate lawyers in the country. Over the years, several of our appellate lawyers have also become appellate judges on the Ninth Circuit, Arizona Supreme Court, and Arizona Court of Appeals.

Osborn Maledon’s services span the full range of appellate law:

  • Handling an appeal from start to finish
  • Interlocutory appeals
  • Amicus briefs
  • Assessing cases for potential appeals
  • Consulting with clients and trial lawyers during an appeal
  • Trial consulting, including issue preservation

As one client observed, "Osborn Maledon’s briefs are better written and more persuasive than any I have seen.” Benchmark Appellate, 2012. 

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

Associated Attorneys

Associated Attorneys

Associated Announcements

Associated Publications

Representative Matters

Constitutional Issues

 Election Law

  • Clayton v. West, (Ariz. 2020) (eligibility of Kanye West as a candidate for president on the general election ballot)
  • Stanwitz v. Reagan, 245 Ariz. 344 (2018) (initiative eligibility issues)
  • Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, -- U.S. – (2016) (equal protection requirements for populations deviations in legislative redistricting plan)
  • Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, -- U.S. – (2015) (authority of independent commission to conduct congressional redistricting)
  • Respect Promise in Opposition to R-14-02-Neighbors for a Better Glendale v. Hanna, 238 Ariz. 296 (App. 2015) (referendum challenge)
  • Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 772 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014) (holding that Federal Elections Assistance Commission was not mandated to grant Arizona’s and other state requests to modify voter registration form)
  • State ex rel. Montgomery v. Comm'r Colleen Mathis, 231 Ariz. 103 (App. 2012) (addressing powers of County Attorney to investigate members of Independent Redistricting Commission and affirming injunction against investigation)
  • Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721 (2011) (constitutionality of matching funds provision in state public campaign funding program)

Administrative Law

  Intellectual Property & Antitrust

Criminal Law

  • State v. Fischer, 242 Ariz. 44 (2017) (trial judge may weigh evidence, make credibility determinations, and order a new trial even when there is sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict)
  • Bashir v. Pineda, 226 Ariz. 351 (App. 2011) (where a defendant provides some detail of exculpatory evidence she wishes to present to grand jury, prosecutor must share that information to allow grand jury to decide whether to hear from defendant)
  • State v. Bigger, 227 Ariz. 196 (App. 2011) (appeal of first-degree murder conviction involving pretrial publicity, DNA evidence and third-party culpability evidence)
  • State v. Botkin, 221 Ariz. 1 (2009) (superior court has authority to transfer criminal defendant from intensive to standard probation before making finding that defendant committed an additional felony, thereby avoiding mandatory prison sentence)

Appeals from Jury Trials

Other Legal Issues

Amicus Briefs