Appellate Law

Kerr & Wagstaffe is widely recognized for its sophisticated and cutting edge appellate practice in both state and federal courts across the country. We have represented a broad array of clients in both state and federal appeals, with great success.

Our team of appellate attorneys delivers the detailed analysis and zealous oral advocacy needed to prevail at the appellate level. We apply our creativity, skill and experience at every step of the process to protect our clients’ rights on appeal, preserving trial court victories and challenging adverse decisions. We encourage collaborative efforts on appeal with trial counsel, and are open to flexible fee arrangements, including contingency fees.

We can help you at every stage of the appellate process:

Preserving the Record for Appeal

The first step of winning on appeal is making sure you have a proper trial court record. We are frequently retained to provide advice to counsel during trial to protect and preserve rights and issues on a subsequent appeal.

Post-Trial Briefing

Post-trial briefing is often essential to frame issues for appeal while giving the trial court the opportunity to address potential errors. As part of our appellate work, we are frequently asked to assist trial counsel in preparing and opposing requests for new trial, motions for JNOV, and applications for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Appellate Briefing

The heart of the appellate process lies in the briefs. We recognize the importance of drafting a compelling brief that captures and holds the reader’s interest from start to finish.

Appellate Motions and Writ Practice

Motions and writs at the appellate level present complex and unique challenges. We have substantial experience in bringing interlocutory writs and appellate motions to expedite review of critical legal issues and seek early dispositions of otherwise lengthy appeals.

Amicus Briefs

Friend-of-the-court briefs provide people other than the parties with the opportunity to influence the outcome of decisions in critical cases. We provide amicus representation to a variety of organizations, including pro bono representation of non-profit and public advocacy groups.

Read more about our representative appellate work below. Contact Kerr & Wagstaffe for more information. Based in San Francisco, we handle litigation throughout California and the nation.

Representative Work

Kerr & Wagstaffe attorneys have represented parties or amici in connection with the following decisions available on Westlaw:

  • Ass’n of California Ins. Companies v. Jones,
    235 Cal. App. 4th 1009, 185 Cal. Rptr. 3d 788, review granted and opinion superseded sub nom. Ass’n of California Ins. Companies v. Jones, 189 Cal. Rptr. 3d 822 (Cal. 2015)
  • Hanna v. Harmon,
    No. A139142, 2015 WL 1734779 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2015)
  • Hanna v. Tamura Designs, Inc.,
    No. H039214, 2015 WL 229627 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2015)
  • Mireskandari v. Mayne,
    599 F. App’x 677 (9th Cir. 2015)
  • Tenborg v. CalCoastNews/UncoveredSLO.com LLC,
    No. 2D CIVIL B254094, 2015 WL 4537168 (Cal. Ct. App. July 28, 2015)
  • Danko v. O’Reilly,
    232 Cal. App. 4th 732, 181 Cal. Rptr. 3d 304 (2014)
  • Galligan & Biscay v. Galligan,
    No. A138617, 2014 WL 4071635 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2014)
  • Graham-Sult v. Clainos,
    756 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2014)
  • Harper v. Lugbauer,
    577 F. App’x 663 (9th Cir. 2014)
  • In re White,
    565 F. App’x 623 (9th Cir. 2014)
  • Lintz v. Lintz,
    222 Cal. App. 4th 1346, 167 Cal. Rptr. 3d 50 (2014)
  • Missud v. San Francisco Superior Court,
    538 F. App’x 745 (9th Cir. 2013) cert. denied sub nom. Missud v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cnty., 134 S. Ct. 1000, 187 L. Ed. 2d 852 (2014)
  • St. Croix v. Superior Court,
    228 Cal. App. 4th 434, 175 Cal. Rptr. 3d 202 (2014), review denied (Nov. 12, 2014)
  • Alexander v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc.,
    219 Cal. App. 4th 1183, 162 Cal. Rptr. 3d 455 (2013), reh’g denied (Oct. 9, 2013), review denied (Dec. 11, 2013)
  • Barry v. State Bar of California,
    218 Cal. App. 4th 1435, 161 Cal. Rptr. 3d 117 review granted and opinion superseded, 312 P.3d 1071 (Cal. 2013)
  • Bigler v. Harker Sch.,
    213 Cal. App. 4th 727, 153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 78 (2013)
  • MHC Fin. Ltd. P’ship v. City of San Rafael,
    714 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2013) cert. denied sub nom. MHC Fin. Ltd. P’ship v. City of San Rafael, Cal., 134 S. Ct. 900, 187 L. Ed. 2d 776 (2014)
  • Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.,
    738 F.3d 214 (9th Cir. 2013)
  • Sander v. State Bar of Cal.,
    58 Cal. 4th 300, 314 P.3d 488 (2013)
  • Doe v. Univ. of Pac.,
    467 F. App’x 685 (9th Cir. 2012)
  • Douglas v. Town of Portola Valley,
    468 F. App’x 728 (9th Cir. 2012)
  • Streit v. Farmers Grp., Inc.,
    No. B231285, 2012 WL 6623683 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2012)
  • Tenzera, Inc. v. Osterman,
    205 Cal. App. 4th 16, 140 Cal. Rptr. 3d 96 (2012)
  • Adetuyi v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco,
    No. A124936, 2011 WL 1878853 (Cal. Ct. App. May 17, 2011)
  • Digital Video Sys., Inc. v. Sun,
    No. H034407, 2011 WL 1134662 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2011)
  • Kay v. State Bar of California,
    No. A129515, 2011 WL 5137197 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2011)
  • Kirkwood v. California State Auto. Assn. Inter-Ins. Bureau,
    193 Cal. App. 4th 49, 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 480 (2011)
  • Smith v. Ford Motor Co.,
    462 F. App’x 660 (9th Cir. 2011)
  • Williams v. L.A. Fitness Int’l, LLC,
    No. B225622, 2011 WL 4090748 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2011)
  • Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City,
    191 Cal. App. 4th 1559, 120 Cal. Rptr. 3d 665 (2011)
  • ZL Technologies, Inc. v. Gartner Grp., Inc.,
    433 F. App’x 547 (9th Cir. 2011)
  • Bay Guardian Co. v. New Times Media LLC,
    187 Cal. App. 4th 438, 114 Cal. Rptr. 3d 392 (2010), as modified (Aug. 11, 2010), as modified on denial of reh’g (Sept. 8, 2010)
  • Guggenheim v. City of Goleta,
    638 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2010)
  • Henschel v. State Bar of California,
    No. B213595, 2010 WL 3964010 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2010)
  • In re D.R.,
    185 Cal. App. 4th 852, 110 Cal. Rptr. 3d 839 (2010)
  • In re Estate of Gridley,
    No. A123463, 2010 WL 4102359 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2010)
  • Joseph v. State Bar of California,
    No. B221236, 2010 WL 3566643 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2010)
  • Levi v. State Bar of California,
    391 F. App’x 633 (9th Cir. 2010)
  • Roe ex rel. Rodriguez Borrego v. White,
    395 F. App’x 470 (9th Cir. 2010)
  • Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
    582 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
  • Kuo v. Sun,
    No. H031575, 2009 WL 162730, at (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2009), as modified (Feb. 25, 2009)
  • Burke v. State Bar of California,
    295 F. App’x 207 (9th Cir. 2008)
  • Commonwealth Scientific & Indus. Research Organisation v. Toshiba Am. Info. Sys., Inc.,
    297 F. App’x 970 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
  • Gridley v. Gridley,
    166 Cal. App. 4th 1562, 83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 715 (2008)
  • In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Envtl. Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings,
    43 Cal. 4th 1143, 184 P.3d 709 (2008)
  • Infac Mgmt. Corp. v. Infac India Grp., LLC,
    No. B195247, 2008 WL 2081576 (Cal. Ct. App. May 19, 2008)
  • Kuo-Liang Chen v. Lincoln Broad. Co.,
    No. A118597, 2008 WL 2358875 (Cal. Ct. App. June 11, 2008)
  • Miklosy v. Regents of Univ. of California,
    44 Cal. 4th 876, 188 P.3d 629 (2008)
  • Qualcomm Inc. v. Batchelder,
    327 F. App’x 877 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
  • St. Vincent’s Sch. for Boys, Catholic charities CYO v. City of San Rafael,
    161 Cal. App. 4th 989, 75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 213 (2008)
  • Sutton v. LLewellyn,
    288 F. App’x 411 (9th Cir. 2008)
  • Coffee Lane Alliance v. Cnty. of Sonoma,
    No. A113261, 2007 WL 185478 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2007), as modified (Feb. 21, 2007)
  • Konig v. State Bar of California,
    256 F. App’x 900 (9th Cir. 2007)
  • O’Lee v. Compuware Corp.,
    No. A111774, 2007 WL 963450 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2007)
  • People ex rel. Brown v. Tehama Cnty. Bd. of Sup’rs,
    148 Cal. App. 4th 790, 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 558 (2007), as modified (Apr. 11, 2007)
  • Poon v. Poon,
    No. A113528, 2007 WL 3360164 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2007)
  • Yang v. Dar Al-Handash Consultants,
    250 F. App’x 771 (9th Cir. 2007)
  • Franklin v. Terr,
    174 F. App’x 388 (9th Cir. 2006)
  • Sims v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
    365 Ill. App. 3d 997, 851 N.E.2d 701 (2006)
  • Gen. Components, Inc. v. H.T. Components U.S.A., Inc.,
    141 F. App’x 616 (9th Cir. 2005)
  • Quail Creek Vineyards v. Superior Court,
    No. C048743, 2005 WL 1541039 (Cal. Ct. App. June 30, 2005)
  • Schoenfeld v. Grabisch,
    No. A102233, 2005 WL 697975, (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2005)
  • Schoenfeld v. Zwakenberg,
    No. A101525, 2005 WL 697990 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2005)
  • Cent. Garden & Pet Co. v. Scotts Co.,
    85 F. App’x 633 (9th Cir. 2004)
  • Chapman v. Enos,
    116 Cal. App. 4th 920, 10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 852 (2004)
  • Rader v. Sutter,
    90 F. App’x 268 (9th Cir. 2004)
  • Radil v. Sanborn W. Camps, Inc.,
    384 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2004)
  • Theofel v. Farey-Jones,
    359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004)
  • Zack v. Marin Emergency Radio Auth.,
    118 Cal. App. 4th 617, 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 323 (2004), as modified (May 12, 2004)
  • Airport Parking Servs., Inc. v. City of San Bruno,
    No. A097691, 2003 WL 21205926 (Cal. Ct. App. May 23, 2003)
  • Executive Direction, Inc. v. Chubb Grp. of Ins. Companies,
    No. A099108, 2003 WL 22719173 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2003)
  • Hoffman v. State Bar of California,
    113 Cal. App. 4th 630, 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 592 (2003)
  • Kremen v. Cohen,
    337 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2003)
  • Franklin v. Fox,
    312 F.3d 423 (9th Cir. 2002)
  • San Francisco BayKeeper, Inc. v. Tosco Corp.,
    309 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002)
  • Glenn K. Jackson Inc. v. Roe,
    273 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2001)
  • Lee v. Am. Nat. Ins. Co.,
    260 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2001)
  • Fox v. Kramer,
    22 Cal. 4th 531, 994 P.2d 343 (2000)
  • Obrien v. Jones,
    23 Cal. 4th 40, 999 P.2d 95 (2000)
  • United States v. Talao,
    222 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2000)
  • Bollard v. California Province of the Soc’y of Jesus,
    196 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 1999)