Appeals

Arizona Court of Appeals and Supreme Court

Appellate Attorneys

Schneider & Onofry appellate attorneys enjoy strong reputations as skilled oral advocates and brief writers.

Over 100 Appeals

We have represented a wide range of clients as lead and co-counsel in over 100 appeals before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Arizona Supreme Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We have also handled more than 40 administrative appeals.

Several of our attorneys are former clerks to federal and state appellate judges. We have appellate experience in many areas, including commercial and business disputes, First Amendment and other constitutional issues, construction defect, tort liability, medical malpractice, homeowner association disputes, probate and trust issues, and contract disputes.

Core Beliefs

Big Picture. Appellate work requires more than strong writing and oral advocacy skills. It requires objectivity and the confidence to evaluate the “big picture” based on an objective review of what occurred in the trial court and the record on appeal.

Humility and Respect. Being an effective appellate attorney requires a healthy respect for the appellate system, which has its own nuances. To have credibility, an appellate attorney must maintain steadfast adherence to the record on appeal and demonstrate respect for the court and for adversaries’ positions. While theatrics and impassioned pleas often play a part in trial courts, that is not true in appellate courts, where the focus is strictly on the legal arguments and the supporting evidence in the record.

Benefits

Reliable, Highly Trained Appellate Attorneys. Our skilled appellate lawyers are known and respected by appellate judges and the opposition, and we do not shrink at the thought of digging through documents, analyzing the issues and applicable law, preparing briefs, or going to oral arguments.

Objective Analysis. An objective evaluation helps you and your client make the best possible decision based on the status of the case and the appellate record.

Oral Advocacy. Appellate advocacy before a panel of three or more judges is also important to an appeal. The advocate must know the record from top to bottom and be prepared to answer questions on both the legal issues and supporting evidence.

Selected Published Opinions

  • Reza v. Pearce, 806 F.3d 497 (9th Cir. 2015). Dismissal of false arrest claim against police officer upheld on appeal under qualified immunity
  • Arellano v. Primerica Life Ins. Co., 235 Ariz. 371, 332 P.3d 597 (App. 2014): Breach of contract and bad faith verdict upheld against life insurance company; punitive damages based on evidence of reprehensibility upheld, but reduced in scope
  • Braunstein v. Arizona Dept. of Transp., 683 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2012)
  • Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, LLC, 228 Ariz. 9, 2nd P.3d 784 (App.2011)
  • MT Builders, LLC v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., 219 Ariz. 297, 197 P.3d 758 (App. 2008): Summary judgment against subcontractor reversed where indemnity provision required general contractor to prove subcontractor’s fault because indemnity was owed only to the extent caused in whole or in part by the subcontractor’s negligence
  • Strawberry Water v. Paulsen, 220 Ariz. 401, 207 P.3d 654 (App. 2008): Case remanded for retrial of damages based on comparative fault of nonparties
  • Henning v. Montecini Hospitality, Inc., 217 Ariz. 242, 173 P.3d 430 (App. 2007): Summary judgment in dram shop action affirmed in favor of seller of a bar where purchase was not completely finalized; seller owed no duty to person injured by intoxicated patron because seller maintained no control over operation of the premises
  • Fulton Homes Corp. v. BBP Concrete, 214 Ariz. 566, 155 P.3d 1090 (App. 2007): Attorneys’ fee awards to subcontractors affirmed where the evidence supported a determination that the general contractor’s third-party complaint against the subcontractors was not warranted
  • Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. Western Innovations, Inc., 215 Ariz. 237, 159 P.3d 547 (App. 2006)

Recent Memorandum Decisions

  • Preciado v. Young America Insurance Company, 1 CA-CV 16-0082 (6/29/2017): Prevailed before the Arizona Court of Appeals in getting a $750,000 punitive damage award vacated in its entirety.
  • Hahne v. AZ Air Time, LLC, 1 CA-CV 14-0586 (3/22/2016), 2016 WL 1117747: Affirmed trial court’s grant of motion to set aside default judgment based on improper service.
  • Robert Kubicek Architects & Associates, Inc. v. Bosley, et al., 9th Cir. Ct. App. No. 14-15792 (3/11/2016): Affirmed jury verdict in favor of competing architect who left prior firm on claims of copyright violation.
  • Baron v. Dillard, 1 CA-CV 14-0171 (1/5/2016), 2016 WL 54832: Affirmed trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice based on plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with discovery requests.
  • Hutchison v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 1 CA-CV 14-0606 (10/29/2015), 2015 WL 6696583: Obtained reversal of judgment dismissing plaintiff’s bad faith claim.
  • Seronde v. BNSF Ry. Co., 1 CA-CV 14-0166 (4/2/2015): Reversed summary judgment on negligence claim stemming from alleged inadequate markings and warning devices.
  • Security Pest & Termite Sys. of Southern Ariz. v. Reyelts, 1 CA-CV 14-0237 (5/14/2015): Affirmed trial court’s denial of injunctive relief based on the failure to show irreparable harm and delay in seeking the injunction.
  • Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Beale, 1 CA-CV 13-0053 (5/13/2014), 2014 WL 1921086: Affirmed trial court’s ruling striking down overly broad non-solicitation and non-compete provision in employment contract
  • Washington v. Estate of Campbell, 1 CA-CV 12-0777, 1 CA-CV 13-0233 (consolidated) (6/24/2014), 2014 WL 2871342: Affirmed ruling on allocation of competing claims for fire insurance proceeds paid during the pendency of a real estate transaction
  • Robert Kubicek Architects & Associates, Inc. v. Bosley, 1 CA-CV 11-0416 (12/20/2012), 2012 WL 6673954: Grant of new trial in favor of minority shareholder in business dispute affirmed; grant of minority shareholders’ directed verdicts against plaintiff’s claims affirmed; and attorneys’ fees awarded to minority shareholder by the Arizona Court of Appeals and Arizona Supreme Court
  • Battistello v. The Tilted Kilt of Ariz., LLC, 1 CA-CV 10-0739 (12/22/2011), 2011 WL 6747422: Jury verdict in favor of bar upheld in dram shop matter
  • Kowalczyk v. May, 1 CA-CV 10-0559 (10/25/2011), 2011 WL 5066912: Summary judgment and award of attorneys’ fees affirmed in favor of attorney in legal malpractice case; claim barred by statute of limitations; attorneys’ fees also awarded on appeal
  • Anderson v. Graham Bros. et al., 1 CA-CV 09-0254 (8/26/2010), 2010 WL 3366656: Summary judgment in favor of bar affirmed in dram shop action where patron had been safely transported home and later left home while still intoxicated, seriously injuring the plaintiff; intoxicated patron’s decision to leave her home and drive was an intervening and superseding cause that broke the chain of proximate causation
  • Schrum v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. (BNSF), 9th Cir. Ct. App. No. 06-16135 (7/10/2008), 286 Fed.Appx. 380 (9th Cir. 2008): Summary judgment affirmed in favor of railroad on plaintiff’s claim for personal injury damages sought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) due to lack of expert physician testimony
  • Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood Ass'n, et al., 1 CA-CV 07-0117 (10/25/2007), 2007 WL 5471733: Dismissal of complaint and award of attorneys’ fees affirmed in dispute with neighborhood association regarding request for documents; attorneys’ fees also awarded on appeal
  • Dean/Connelly v. Jack in the Box, et al., 1 CA-CV 04-0274, 1 CA-CV 04-0282 (consolidated) (7/19/2005): Dismissal in premises liability case affirmed
  • Allen v. Shamrock Foods Co., 1 CA-CV 04-0256 (3/31/2005): Defense jury verdict in fatal trucking accident case affirmed

Contact Us

Contact Us

Share by: