Successfully handling the appeal is a key part of any winning trial strategy. McLane lawyers not only help clients win at trial but have extensive appellate experience in state and federal appellate courts. Clients rely on us to handle difficult, complex, and sometimes groundbreaking cases on appeal.
Whether defending clients in an appeal from a favorable ruling in the trial court, seeking to overturn an adverse decision, or being retained for the appeal only, McLane trial lawyers have a strong record of appellate success in the New Hampshire Supreme Court and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Members of the McLane trial and appellate group have argued more than 200 cases in the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Our team includes three members of the American College of Trial Lawyers and two partners recognized in Best Lawyers in AmericaÒ for their appellate practice.
McLane's appellate group handles a wide variety of matters in federal and state courts - from traditional appellate briefing and argument to complex, high-stakes matters at the trial level where innovative legal thinking is at a premium. Our appellate attorneys are often retained to evaluate and pursue constitutional challenges, or to handle appeals following an adverse judgment. McLane's expertise encompasses virtually every substantive area, including: administrative law; constitutional law (federal and state); contract disputes; energy; employment; environmental; intellectual property; tax; and shareholder disputes.
Recent appellate cases handled by McLane lawyers include:
Appeal of Pennichuck Water Works, 160 NH 18 (2010). Appeal of a decision of the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission concerning a taking of the assets of the Pennichuck water company.
General Insulation Co. v. Eckman Construction Co., 159 NH 601 (2010). The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the statutory time limitations for notice of claims against a payment bond issued in connection with a public building project.
Appeal of Stonyfield Farm, 159 N.H. 227 (2009). The New Hampshire Supreme Court dismissed on standing an appeal challenging the finding of the N.H. Public Utilities Commission that it did not have jurisdiction over the construction of a $400 million mercury reduction project.
Appeal of Pinkerton Academy, 155 N.H. 1 (2007). The New Hampshire Supreme Court found that the Pinkerton Academy was not a public employer within the meaning of the New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board.
Sherman v. Graciano, 152 N.H. 119 (2005). We represented a doctor in a dispute over the interpretation and application of a shareholder redemption agreement. The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed an arbitral decision and credited our client's claim in full. This case has since been frequently cited on issue of contract interpretation.
Miller v. Amica Mutual Ins., 156 N.H. 117 (2007). This case addressed the claims of the estate of a young man who had been thrown from his motorcycle and struck and killed by a hit-and-run motorist. The decedent's motorcycle was not insured. The decedent did, however, have insurance on his truck. We therefore sought coverage under the uninsured motorist coverage provided by that policy. The insurance company pointed to a clause in the decedent's truck policy that precluded coverage to the extent the decedent had been operating an uninsured motor vehicle at the time of injury. However, we argued that the decedent at the time of the injury was not operating the motorcycle, but rather stood in the position of, for example, a pedestrian hit by an underinsured motorist. The New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed with our interpretation, and permitted coverage of the decedent's wrongful death claim under the terms of his automobile insurer's underinsured motorist endorsement.
Carleton v. Edgewood Heights, 156 N.H. 407 (2007). This case arose from a condominium owners association's assessment for repairs to attic spaces above townhouse units. The owner of a number of garden style apartments in the same complex objected to the assessment, arguing that the repairs should be paid by the owners of the townhouse units alone. The argument centered on the condominium's declaration definition of the individual units versus its provision for common space. The Supreme Court, after close examination of the documentation, exonerated the Association's special assessment.
Verizon v. Rochester, 156 N.H. 624 (2007): We represented the telephone company in its abatement action regarding a tax imposed on real property it uses and occupies in the public ways. In addition to arguing that the City of Rochester had improperly assessed the value of the real estate used and occupied by the telephone company, we argued that the city had singled out the telephone company for imposing a real estate tax it had not assessed against other similarly situated entities. The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled in the telephone company's favor, finding that the tax against the telephone company would be stricken as a discriminatory levy because the city violated the telephone company's right to equal protection under the law.