Appellate

Boies, Schiller & Flexner has one of the broadest and most effective appellate practices in the country. Our lawyers have briefed and argued appeals across a remarkable range of legal issues, in the Supreme Court of the United States, in every federal court of appeals, and in the supreme courts and courts of appeals of more than a dozen states.

The creativity, skill, experience, and tenacity that our lawyers bring to the trial court have enabled us to build one of the nation's premier litigation firms. Those same qualities make us just as effective in the courts of appeals, whether defending our victories, or challenging adverse rulings, in the courts below. Recognizing our ability to grasp quickly the essential facts of even the most complex and challenging cases, clients also have hired us to represent them on appeal after using a different firm in the trial court.

Our lawyers have the added insight and perspective that comes from seeing how appellate courts work first hand. Many of our lawyers served as judicial law clerks, including six former United States Supreme Court clerks, clerks from every regional federal court of appeals, and clerks from the Supreme Courts of California and Connecticut. Another of our partners served as the Special Master to the United States Supreme Court in the case of New Jersey v. New York.

Partners in the Firm have personally argued landmark Supreme Court cases, including Bush v. Gore; Pennzoil v. Texaco; Square D v. Niagara Frontier; and Kremer v. Chemical Construction. Other partners, counsel and associates, including former United States Attorneys and other state and federal prosecutors, successfully argued dozens of criminal appeals before joining our Firm. The many appeals that we have won for our clients include the following:

• SR Int'l Business Ins. Co., Ltd. v. World Trade Center Properties, LLC, 467 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2006) (affirming jury verdict for our client favor in dispute over $700 million in insurance coverage for the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center);

• Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming decision that our client's use of a passive website outside the United States did not support personal jurisdiction for plaintiff's trademark infringement claim);

• Hromyak v. Tyco Int'l Ltd, 942 So.2d 1022 (Fla. App. 2006) (dismissing securities fraud lawsuit against our client on statute of limitations grounds);

• In re Tyco Int'l Ltd Securities Litigation, 422 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2005) (affirming decision in our client's favor that adverse party had waived right to seek arbitration);

• Blades v. Monsanto Corp., 400 F.3d 562 (8th Cir. 2005) (affirming trial court's refusal to certify antitrust class action against our client);

• Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan, 364 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming $261 million arbitration award we won for our client, an FPL-Caithness joint venture);

• Williamson Oil Co. v. Philip Morris USA, 346 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2003) (affirming summary judgment to our client in antitrust class action claiming $12 billion in overcharges from alleged price-fixing conspiracy);

• Caiola v. Citibank, 295 F.3d 512 (2d Cir. 2002) (reversing dismissal of our client's claims for securities fraud and, in a case of first impression, redefining "security" to include synthetic options on a security);

• A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. (9th Cir. 2001) (reversing preliminary injunction entered against our client, a peer-to-peer music file sharing service accused of contributory copyright infringement)

• Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap v. Heeremac, 241 F.3d 420 (5th Cir. 2001) (affirming dismissal of antitrust action in favor of our client);

• Pincay v. Andrews, 238 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2001) (reversing jury verdict against our client on RICO claims on statute of limitations grounds); and

• Okeelanta Power Ltd P'ship v. Florida Power & Light, 766 So.2d 264 (Fla. App. 2000) (affirming dismissal of antitrust counterclaim in favor of our client).

• Herbert v. Lando, 781 F.2d 298 (2d Cir. 1986) (holding that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claims that he was defamed in 60 Minutes and Atlantic Monthly news reports)