Appellate Litigation

Appellate litigation is a complex and challenging process, which is why we work closely with our clients to develop tailored strategies that meet their unique goals for each matter. When an appeal is necessary to resolve a dispute, Klehr Harrison’s appellate lawyers stand ready to advise and represent clients throughout the process. Appeals typically involve difficult and unsettled legal issues, the resolution of which often is of great significance to a client’s business. Whether you are trying to overturn an unfavorable ruling or preserve a victory, appeals require a deft touch in framing the issues and presenting only the best arguments in a persuasive manner, both in writing and at oral argument.

Our attorneys have briefed and argued appeals in state and federal courts nationwide, including our “home” courts—the Pennsylvania Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth Courts, the New Jersey Supreme Court and Appellate Division, the Delaware Supreme Court, the New York Appellate Division, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Third Circuits—as well as numerous other federal Courts of Appeals and state appellate courts.

We have handled successfully a range of appellate proceedings—direct, as-of-right review of trial court final decisions, of course, but also permitted interlocutory appeals and petitions for discretionary review in state courts of last resort, which Klehr Harrison appellate lawyers have had granted in different states across the country.

In addition to these traditional routes to review in appellate courts, our attorneys have experience with less typical procedures for obtaining appellate review, including petitions for certification of non-final trial court orders, collateral order review, extraordinary petitions, such as petitions for writs of mandamus or King’s Bench jurisdiction, and original proceedings in appellate courts. Knowing how and when to seek the guidance of the appellate court allows the appellate practice group to work with our trial teams and our clients to devise the most effective and efficient strategies for achieving the client’s objectives.

The appellate practice group also supports our work in trial courts in other important ways. Our appellate attorneys assist with post-trial motion practice and issue preservation at and after trial. They also frequently are called on to support our teams and our clients in the trial courts when significant briefing is required on motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, and otherwise.

Our appellate litigation practice is widely recognized for its excellence. Our attorneys have been recognized by leading legal publications and organizations, such as Chambers USA, for their outstanding litigation work and the Chair of the practice group, Glenn Weiner, has been named a Stand-out Attorney by Thomson Reuters.

We have successfully handled appeals for clients in a wide range of industries, including real estate, health care, retail, securities, manufacturing, gaming, transportation, and banking, among others. The legal subjects handled run the gamut from nuanced contract disputes to interpretation of state and federal constitutional provisions, statutes and regulations to tort actions.

Representative Matters

• Served as lead counsel on appeal in Duffield House Associates, L.P. v. City of Philadelphia and consolidated cases. We argued the appeals on behalf of the group of taxpayer counsel before the en banc Commonwealth Court, which affirmed the trial court’s unprecedented decision to order the City of Philadelphia to refund as much as $63 million to commercial property taxpayers because the City’s reassessment of only commercial properties violated the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. We further led the taxpayers’ successful effort to oppose allowance of appeal in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. 
• Successfully briefed and argued an issue of first impression before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as to whether a plaintiff in a Pennsylvania securities fraud action has the obligation under Section 1-401(b) of the Pennsylvania Securities Act to plead and prove intentional misrepresentation. 
• Obtained a favorable ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on post-trial motions in a Title IX discrimination matter, vacating a $15 million jury verdict, ordering a new trial on the Title IX claim and granting judgment as a matter of law on an accompanying tortious interference with contract claim.
• Successfully argued, on behalf of approximately 140 commercial property owners, the Philadelphia School District’s appeals of orders of the Court of Common Pleas quashing the school district’s commercial-only real estate tax assessment appeals because the appeals violated the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
• Successfully defended an appeal in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court of the grant of a gaming license to one of two successful applicants in Philadelphia and obtained an order from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in an original proceeding ordering the City to grant zoning approvals to the gaming licensee. 
• Obtained an order on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third District vacating summary judgment against our client on an issue of first impression in federal courts regarding the application of overtime laws to employee benefits offered through a Section 125 “cafeteria plan.” 
• Successfully defended a Fortune 500 insurance company on multi-hundred-million-dollar claims in proceedings before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 
• Successfully defended summary judgment in favor of a national construction products company in serial and class action litigation alleging property damage on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. 
• Successfully defended a trial verdict in favor of a national retailer in tort and consumer litigation on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 
• Successfully defended an order granting a motion to dismiss in favor of a major bank in a securities fraud action brought by a group of shareholders claiming over $30 million in damages in connection with the spin-off of a subsidiary of a large telecommunications company on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.