Appellate Representation
Handling many high-stakes trials leads to briefing and arguing many high-stakes appeals. The complexity and uniqueness of our cases requires the highest level of legal analysis, strategy, and creativity. Our attorneys quickly cut through the noise of the district court record and focus on the crucial issues on appeal. Understanding both the trial and appeal side of a case allows us to develop the best record for appeal and effectively present arguments before the appellate court.
Advocacy with a Collaborative Edge
Our attorneys have handled a wide range of appeals, including mass tort, business disputes, medical malpractice, environmental cases, patent litigation, estates and trusts matters, and more. Many of our attorneys are former judicial law clerks for federal and state appellate courts, including the Eighth Circuit and Minnesota Supreme Court. Our team-based approach leads us to vigorous internal debate, ensuring we distill the issues into the most effective arguments for our clients.
Justice Through Appellate Advocacy
Our record in recent years includes some of the most significant appellate wins in Minnesota.
Preserving Trial Victories
We understand that winning a trial or dispositive motion is just the beginning. The appellate process is crucial in safeguarding those hard-fought courtroom victories. Whether you secured a favorable verdict with another firm or are continuing your journey with us, our appellate team is highly skilled in navigating the complexities of appellate practice—determined to ensure those victories last.
Shaping the Law
Appeals do more than resolve individual cases—they shape the law itself. Our firm is passionate about contributing to the development of legal precedent that benefits our clients while moving the law along an arc towards justice. By taking on cases with significant legal implications, we strive to influence and refine the law.
Minnesota Health Records Act Cases
Represented putative classes of patients before the Minnesota Supreme Court in an action seeking to vindicate their statutory right to access their own medical records. The trial court had granted a motion to dismiss and the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed, concluding that, even though plaintiffs had an express statutory right to receive their medical records with 30 days, they lacked any ability to enforce that right. In a major decision presenting novel issues of statutory interpretation, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding that patients had a private right of action and reinstating their complaints. The Supreme Court held that the Private Attorney General Statute’s reference to “the law of this state respecting unfair, discriminatory, and other unlawful practices in business, commerce, or trade” includes consumer protection statutes like the Minnesota Health Records Act. This decision ensures that patients are not left without a legal remedy to enforce their clear statutory rights to their medical records.
State of Alaska v. Williams Alaska Petroleum Inc., et al.
Prevailed on appeal before the Alaska Supreme Court, affirming a judgment in favor of Flint Hills and the State of Alaska against Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc. and The Williams Companies, Inc. After a multi-week trial, the Williams entities were ultimately held liable to pay over $120 million in past damages, interest, and fees, as well as held responsible for future environmental contamination and remediation costs. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed both contractual and statutory claims and rejected the Williams entities legal, factual, and evidentiary challenges on appeal.
Correcting Injustices
Mistakes happen, and sometimes trial outcomes are unjust. Our appellate attorneys fight to rectify these errors and fight for a fair resolution.
In re Bair Hugger, MDL 2666
Represented plaintiffs in Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Successfully briefed, argued, and reversed the district court’s dismissal of the entire MDL, reinstating nearly 6,000 cases. The Eighth Circuit, applying an abuse of discretion standard, reversed the district court’s exclusion of evidence from four of plaintiffs’ experts, including those experts who established general causation of plaintiffs’ injuries from use of the Bair Hugger. The Eighth Circuit also reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant 3M.
Popovich v. Allina Health System
Represented an individual before the Minnesota Supreme Court to obtain a decision expanding the ability of people injured by medical malpractice to seek compensation. Before this case, healthcare providers in Minnesota could (and routinely did) hire independent contractor physicians to work in their emergency departments so that they could avoid liability for any malpractice that those physicians committed on patients. The Minnesota Supreme Court held, as a matter of first impression, that hospital systems can be subject to vicarious liability for the negligence of independent contractors providing services at their hospitals. This result changed longstanding law, abrogating prior appellate precedent dating back decades. The Minnesota Supreme Court reinstated plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims and remanded the case to the district court. We were ultimately able to obtain a very favorable result for the Popovich family.
White Bear Lake Restoration Association v. Minnesota DNR
Represented plaintiff seeking to enforce the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (“MERA”) at the Minnesota Supreme Court. After a three-week trial resulted in a finding that the DNR violated MERA by violating environmental laws and by materially harming White Bear Lake and underlying aquifers, the Court of Appeals reversed and held that MERA did not allow for any relief. The Minnesota Supreme Court reinstated the claims, interpreting MERA to have a “broad and comprehensive scope” that encompassed DNR’s conduct in impairing White Bear Lake (both by its violation of existing environmental rules and by materially adversely affecting the Lake by issuing about 70 groundwater pumping permits without considering the cumulative impact of its permitting decisions). In a critical holding for environmental protection, the Supreme Court held that MERA allows individuals to challenge state agency conduct where an agency’s collective and cumulative inaction and mismanagement causes pollution and impairment to state natural resources. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court on all remaining issues.
