appeals

Appellate Practice

Our attorneys have significant experience handling appeals and in a variety of matters arising from both state and federal trial courts. Our attorneys have the skills necessary for successful appellate advocacy and have significant experience in providing a realistic analysis of the likely success of a case on appeal and on handling the matter through completion of the appellate process.  The attorneys at Iannitelli Marcolini, P.C. have an intimate familiarity with appellate procedure, persuasive writing ability, a keen understanding of the law, and the experience necessary to deal with complicated records and legal issues.

A list of representative reported appellate cases handled by the firm’s attorneys include:

• Lang v. Superior Court, 170 Ariz. 602, 826 P.2d 1228 (App. 1992) presented an issue of first impression in Arizona which established when former employees may be contacted by counsel for the employer’s opponent without notice to the employer’s counsel.  The case remains the controlling law in Arizona and has been cited as the basis for rulings in other jurisdictions.

• Ahwatukee Custom Estates Management Ass’n, Inc. v. Bach, 193 Ariz. 401, 943 P.2d 109 (1999).  In this case, the Arizona Supreme Court established new guidelines pertaining to the recovery of certain expenses as attorneys’ fees.

• Burke v. Voicestream Wireless Corp. II., 207 Ari. 393, 87 P.3rd 81 (App. 2004) resulted in the reversal of a trial court’s ruling and resulting in the removal of a cellular telephone tower which had been built in violation of deed restrictions.

• Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 242 Ariz. 547, 399 P.3d 94 (2017) resulted in the Supreme Court restoring the decision of a zoning board and addressed a number of land use issues raised by the firm’s attorneys.

• Tyman v. Hintz Concrete, Inc., 214 Ariz. 73, 148 P.3d 1146 (2006) in which the Arizona Supreme Court addressed inconsistent prior interpretations of Rule 15(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure related to the relation back rule of amendments to pleadings in a pending action.

• McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016) which held that a homeowners’ association was not authorized to exclude a board member from its executive sessions.

• Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey, 224 Ariz. 42, 226 P.3d 411 (App. 2010) and Raimey v. Ditsworth, 227 Ariz. 552, 261 P.3d 436 (2011) addressed the efforts to impose mandatory membership in an existing community, the circumstances where amendments to deed restrictions require unanimous consent and other related issues.

• GCB Communications, Inc. v. U.S. South Communications, Inc., 650 F.3rd 1257 (9th Cir. 2011)

• And several other unreported decisions by the Arizona Court of Appeals, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court.