Firm Overview

Attorney Profiles

Practice Areas

Contact Us

 

Home Page

LinkedIn

Warner Angle Hallam Jackson & Formanek PLC

     

Appeals

Trial court decisions that are based on erroneous interpretation or application of the law may be corrected by appealing the ruling to a higher court

Rulings and orders entered by Arizona’s trial courts may be appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals. From the Court of Appeals a party may seek to have the case heard by the Arizona Supreme Court by filing a Petition for Review. The Supreme Court is not required to accept a Petition for Review, and the Court only accepts cases concerning important legal issues for which the decision will have statewide impact.

At Warner Angle, each trial practice group has attorneys who prosecute and defend appeals in their practice area. The broad areas in which we represent businesses and individuals in appeals include:

An appeal is not simply a chance for a second trial. An appeal involves an examination of the evidence presented to, and the legal rulings made by, the trial court. Some issues are reviewed under an “abuse of discretion” standard whereby the Court of Appeals gives substantial deference to the trial court’s findings and conclusions. Other issues are reviewed under a de novo standard whereby the Court of Appeals more closely examines the trial court’s interpretation and application of the law.

Whether appealing a trial court’s adverse ruling or defending an appeal in support of a trial court’s favorable ruling, our attorneys can assist through the entire appeals process. Typical tasks in an appeal include reviewing the pleadings and orders of the trial court; analyzing the trial exhibits and transcripts; performing legal research regarding the applicable law; and drafting the Opening Brief, Response Brief and Reply Brief.

Over the years, the appellate attorneys at Warner Angle have handled dozens of appeals involving many different legal issues. Most decisions rendered by the Court of Appeals are “Memorandum Decisions,” meaning that the decision is binding on the parties to the appeal but may not be cited as precedent in other cases. Some cases are published as formal “Opinions” and serve as binding precedent for all trial courts in Arizona. Representative cases handled by appellate attorneys at Warner Angle include the following:

  • Reid v. Reid, 222 Ariz. 204, 213 P.3d 353 (Ct. App. 2009)

  • Rosen v. Roger, No. 1 CA-CV 08-0110 (2009) (Memorandum Decision)

  • Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg, 219 Ariz. 249, 196 P.3d 852 (Ct. App. 2008)

  • Neal v. Brown, 219 Ariz.14, 191 P.3d 1030 (Ariz App. 2008)

  • Colosimo v. Colosimo, No. 1 CA-CV 06-0400 (2007) (Memorandum Decision)

  • Roden v. Roden, 190 Ariz. 407, 949 P.2d 67 (Ariz. App. 1997)

  • Premier Financial Services v. Citibank (Arizona), 185 Ariz. 80, 912 P.2d 1309 (Ariz. App. 1995)

  • Gilder v. PGA Tour, Inc., 936 F.2d 417 (9th Cir. 1991)

  • Mathis v. Liquor Bd., 146 Ariz. 570, 707 P.2d 974 (Ariz. App. 1985)

  • Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. Pugliani, 144 Ariz. 281, 697 P.2d 674 (1985)

  • Firedoor Corp. of America v. Tibshraeny Bros. Const., Inc., 126 Ariz. 392, 616 P.2d 67 (Ariz. App. 1980)

  • American Sav. and Loan Ass'n v Stewart Title and Trust of Tucson, 121 Ariz. 235, 589 P.2d 478 (Ariz. App. 1978)

  • Partin v. Olney, 121 Ariz. 448, 591 P.2d 74 (Ariz. App. 1978)

  • Certified Collectors, Inc. v. Lesnick, 116 Ariz. 601, 570 P.2d 769 (1977)

 

Attorneys

Jerome Elwell

Jerome
Elwell

John Buric

John
Buric

Chris Baniszewski

Chris Baniszewski

Erik Bergstrom

Erik
Bergstrom

Rob Maysey

Rob
Maysey

Phillip Visnansky

Phillip
Visnansky

Andrea Simbro

Andrea
Simbro

   
          

© 2013-2017. Warner Angle Hallam Jackson & Formanek PLC.  •  2555 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 800, Phoenix, AZ 85016  •  602-264-7101