Appellate Advocacy

The firm practices in the field of appellate advocacy, having presented and won appeals on the Administrative, State and Federal Level. As a direct result of this appellate work the firm has at least five published opinions. Most recently, the firm made new law by reversing two trial Courts that found a pet owner’s damages to be limited to the cost of the pet, rather than the total amount of the veterinary bills incurred as a result of the wrongful and/or negligent conduct of the defendant (See Published Opinions in Results and News). On the Federal side, the firm pioneered a change in wrongful termination law for military officers who were wrongfully terminated by the United States government. This latter case resulted in three separate published opinions that are also set forth in the Results and News section herein. Many of the firm’s members are skilled brief writers, and founding partner Steven Haney has won his last four appeals, three of which were published and are now binding precedent.

  • The firm was successful at reversing a trial court decision granting a demurrer against our client, an elementary school teacher, who brought claims based on her physical disability. Following an appeal, the Second District Court of Appeals panel agreed with the firm and found that the trial court Judge erred in dismissing the action based on the demurrer. The decision was therefore reversed and our client was allowed to proceed with her claims against the Los Angeles Unified School District.
  • Brought appeal on behalf of group of owners of mobile home park to obtain restitution which, although ordered by the private ADR Judge, was removed from the judgment by the LASC trial court judge. After a fully contested appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court judge, finding that owners of the mobile home park who had brought the claim were, in fact, entitled to restitution.
  • In two cases that were related that pertained to pet owners’ rights, Haney filed appeals against the decision of two trial court judges, both whom held that the pet owner could only obtain as damages the cost of the repair of the animal or the value of the animal, whichever was less. Because in both cases the pet cost less than $1,000.00, and the cost of repairs were in excess of $20,000.00, Haney fought to overturn the existing law contained in CACI jury instruction which limited the remedies of pet owners to damages available to the party who had had their personal property destroyed. In a published opinion, the Second District for the California Court of Appeals reversed both trial court judges, making new law that there was an exception to the jury instruction when a pet owner was involved due to the nature of the property being a family pet. As a result, the pet owner who incurs veterinary bills in trying to save their animal will be entitled to obtain the full amount of the veterinary bills, rather than just the value of the animal.