Three Udall Shumway Attorneys Named to 2013 Southwest SuperLawyers
Udall Shumway PLC congratulates three attorneys who have been selected for inclusion in the 2013 Southwest Super Lawyers list recognizing [...]Read Full Article
Udall Shumway Welcomes Chris Gulinson and Addition of Workers’ Compensation Practice
Udall Shumway PLC is pleased to announce that Chris Gulinson has joined the firm as a partner. Mr. Gulinson will [...]Read Full Article
Contact Information1138 North Alma School Road
Mesa, Arizona 85201
Phone: (480) 461-5300
Fax: (480) 833-9392
Once a court or administrative agency renders a decision on a case, the parties often have the right to appeal the decision to a higher court. The appeals process presents unique challenges and hurdles which require specialized skills and knowledge to properly address. Udall Shumway has an experienced Appellate Practice Group that has drafted appellate briefs for and argued appeals before the Arizona Court of Appeals and Supreme Court as well as federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. If you are considering an appeal, please contact a member of our Appellate Practice Group, listed below, for a consultation.
Some of the reported opinions resulting from appeals handled by the Appellate Practice Group at Udall Shumway include:
Miller-Wohl Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Labor and Industry
214 Mont. 238, 692 P.2d 1243 (App. 1984)
Employer terminated employee’s employment because her pregnancy diminished her effectiveness as a sales clerk. The employee filed a complaint with the State Commissioner of Labor and Industry claiming that the employer had violated the Montana Maternity Leave Act. The Commissioner found that the employer had violated the Act, and the employer petitioned for judicial review. The District Court, Eight Judicial District, Cascade County, Joel G. Roth, J., held that the Act was discriminatory in that it favored nondisabled nonpregnant employees and disabled male employees, and that it was preempted by federal legislation. The Commissioner and the employee appealed. The Supreme Court, Sheehy, J., held that: (1) the employer clearly violated the Montana Maternity Leave Act; (2) the employer had standing to raise the validity of the Act; and (3) Montana Maternity Leave Act is not preempted by either Title VII or the Pregnancy Discrimination Act; the Act is consistent with the federal acts, and federal acts permit state action in the same field. District Court reversed; Commission’s order reinstated; remanded to District Court.
Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.
140 Ariz. 383, 682 P.2d 388 (1984)
In this landmark opinion, the Arizona Supreme Court introduced the doctrine of reasonable expectations which now governs the interpretation of insurance contracts in Arizona. The court held that standardized insurance policy provisions will not be enforced if they are contrary to the insurer’s reasonable expectations.
Faber v. Althoff
168 Ariz. 213, 812 P.2d 1031 (App. 1990)
The Arizona Court of Appeals granted a creditor a reversal of the lower court’s ruling in favor of the debtor and held that the creditor was not precluded from proceeding in a separate action to recover a deficiency from individual partners who were not named or served in a prior foreclosure action.
C&J Travel, Inc. v. Shumway
161 Ariz. 33, 775 P.2d 1097 (App. 1989)
A lower court ruling regarding a creditor’s right to execute a judgment against the community property of a married couple was upheld by the Arizona Court of Appeals. The court held that the creditor could not reach the couple’s community property to satisfy an out of state judgment because the wife was not a party to the out of state lawsuit and a new lawsuit could not be instigated in Arizona adding the wife as a defendant because the matter had already been adjudicated in the other state.
Correa v. Curbey
124 Ariz. 480, 605 P.2d 458 (App. 1979)
Court of Appeals decision regarding property damage of adjacent landowners to blasting operation.
Angle v. Marco Builders, Inc.
128 Ariz. 396, 626 P.2d 126 (1981)
Arizona Supreme Court decision interpreting a real estate purchase contract.
James v. Cox
130 Ariz. 152, 634 P.2d 964 (App. 1981)
Court of Appeals opinion regarding personal injury trial.
Kay S. v. Mark S.
213 Ariz 373; 142 P.3d 249 (Ariz. App. 2006)
Preferred Risk v. Tank
146 Ariz. 33; 703 P.2d 580 (Ariz. App. 1985)
Pruitt v. Pavelin
141 Ariz. 195, 685 P.2d 1347 (Ariz. App. 1984)
Rocky Mtn. Fire and Cas. Co. v. Biddulph Oldsmobile
131 Ariz. 289, 640 P.2d 851 (Ariz. 1982)
Sneed v. Belt
130 Ariz. 229, 635 P.2d 517 (Ariz. App. 1981)
Lowman V. City of Mesa
125 Ariz. 590, 611 P.2d 943 (Ariz. App. 1980)
In re Marriage of Foster
125 Ariz. 590, 611 P.2d 943 (Ariz. App. 1980)
Custom Roofing Co. Inc. v. Transamerica Inc. Co.
120 Ariz. 196, 584 P.2d 1187 (Ariz. App. 1978)
Guthrie v. City of Scottsdale
153 Fed. Appx. 987 (9th Cir., 2005)
Arthur Children’s Trust v. Keim
994 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir., 1993)