Appeals

The right to an appeal to a higher court is as American as the Constitution itself. The skills required to present a case to an appellate tribunal are far different than those needed to bring a case to trial. The firm of Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli, Esco & Dimatteo is extremely proud to have several experienced attorneys who have the skills and experience necessary to successfully practice in this area of the law. Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli, Esco & Dimatteo's portfolio is overflowing with successful appeals and accomplishments, many of which have been of tremendous public importance. As a result, the firm of Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli, Esco & Dimatteo not only handles the appeals of cases in which we have been involved as trial lawyers, but is also called upon by others in the profession to appeal their cases for them. This fact alone indicates that the law firm of Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli, Esco & Dimatteo is more than qualified to represent your needs.

Here are some appeals listed, if you would like to see a complete listing of the appeals click here

M.R. v. ABC
After father's death during paternity suit, the mother, the firm's client, moved to substitute personal representative. The trial court denied motion. The mother appealed. The District Court of Appeal, held that filing a claim in the probate division was not a condition precedent to the substitution of the putative father's personal representative.

Crawford v. Weaver, Kuvin, Weaver & Lipton, P.A.
The trial court dismissed the firm's client's complaint for failure to serve process, and the client appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that, the complaint should be reinstated.

E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., v. Castillo ex rel. Castillo
Child born with rare birth defect sued the firm's client, the owner of a farm. It was alleged that the farm sprayed an agricultural fungicide on field as mother walked by. The trial court entered judgment on jury verdict against the firm's client, and they appealed. The District Court of Appeal, held that plaintiffs' scientific evidence on teratology of fungicide did not satisfy Frye test for admissibility.

Perez v. Circuit City Stores, Inc.
Car owner sued the firm's client, a store, for damages suffered when his car was stolen from store's care and subsequently recovered in damaged condition. After judgment was entered on jury verdict in the client's favor, the trial court, denied the clients motion to have the losing car owner pay for attorneys fees under demand for judgment statute. The client appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that the client's pre-demand costs were included in determining whether "judgment obtained" was 25% more than demand for judgment.

American Medical Systems, Inc. v. Hoeffer
Firm's client brought products liability action. After jury returned verdict in favor of defendant, the trial court, granted the client's motion for new trial. Defendant appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that clients were entitled to new trial based on juror's failure to disclose during voir dire that she had been a co-defendant in prior litigation.