Overview

Appellate litigation is a specialized area requiring unique skill sets and experience. As one noted appeal court judge has put it, “The skills needed for effective appellate advocacy are not always found - indeed, perhaps are rarely found - in good trial lawyers.” Hon. Laurence H. Silberman, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. “Persuading juries takes different forensic and analytical skills than persuading appellate judges.” 

An appellate court does not look at the case or the issues in the same way that the trial court did. Success on appeal requires appellate counsel to draw on their judgment and experience to reanalyze and reframe the issues in the most effective way possible. What worked in the trial court usually will not work in the appellate court. Success also requires a skilled presentation. As Judge Silberman says, “The boost given a case by a thoughtful, elegantly written brief and polished oral argument cannot be overstated.”

Fredrikson’s appellate lawyers have the experience and skills to make a difference on appeal. While we advocate on behalf of clients in state and federal appellate courts across the nation, including the U.S. Supreme Court, our primary focus is on the state and federal courts where we have argued hundreds of cases – the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the Minnesota Supreme Court and Court of Appeals and the state and federal appellate courts in Wisconsin and North and South Dakota. Not only do we frequently appear before those courts, but many of our attorneys have served as judicial clerks to the judges and justices on those courts and take an insider’s perspective to advocating there.

Services

• Case Analysis. We provide an objective evaluation of the issues and merits of an appeal, and advise on selection of appropriate issues and strategies for an appeal.
• Appellate Advocacy. Our appellate attorneys are skilled brief writers, able to quickly zero in on the crux of the dispute – the issue or issues that will turn the case in our client’s favor. Our attorneys are skilled oral advocates. We use moot courts to hone the oral argument and prepare for all possible questions that the judges may ask during the argument.
• Obtaining Discretionary Review. The skill to persuade appellate judges is nowhere more important than when discretionary review is sought of a decision that is not appealable as a matter of right. We understand the legal as well as practical considerations that appellate courts use to evaluate cases for discretionary review, and how to best position the case to obtain review.
• Amicus Briefs. We represent amicus curiae on matters of importance to industry and trade groups and other parties interested in the outcome of a case pending on appeal.
• Thinking Ahead. We assist counsel during trial court proceedings to identify issues that may arise in a later appeal and steps to take to preserve the issues for appeal. We prepare post-trial motions, or assist counsel with preparing them, with an eye toward properly framing the issues for a later appeal.

Representative Cases

Important Business Decisions

• Augustine v. Arizant, Inc., 751 N.W.2d 95 (Minn. 2008) (rights of corporate officers and directors to indemnification under Minnesota Business Corporation Act).
• DLH Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60 (Minn. 1997).
• In re Silicone Implant Ins. Coverage Litigation, 667 N.W.2d 405 (Minn. 2003) (insurance coverage for mass tort liability).
• Diversified Water Diversion Inc. v. Standard Water Control Systems, Inc., 2008 WL 4300258 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008) (first impression issue of standards for punitive damages awards in cases involving nominal compensatory damages).
• Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 582 N.W.2d 916 (Minn. 1998) (duty of care owed by product manufacturer).
• Redeemer Covenant Church v. Church Mutual Ins. Co., 567 N.W.2d 71 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997) (insurance coverage for sexual molestation claims).

Amicus Curiae Briefs

• Kottschade v. City of Rochester, 760 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009) (rights of commercial developers asserting regulatory takings claim based on severe development restrictions.
• Wensmann Realty Inc. v. City of Eagan, 734 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2007) (standards for regulatory takings claims.
• Domtar Inc. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 563 N.W.2d 724 (Minn. 1997) (insurance coverage for pollution claims).

Bios

Primary Attorneys

Kristy L. Albrecht
Sten-Erik Hoidal
Richard D. Snyder
Sarah C.S. McLaren
Aubrey Zuger

Supporting Attorneys

Joseph J. Cassioppi
Dulce J. Foster
David R. Marshall
Cynthia A. Moyer
Lindsay J. Sokolowski
Joseph G. Springer
Teresa M. Thompson

Other Professionals

Leslie A. Anderson