Appellate

The rules of Louisiana and Texas state and federal procedure are fraught with pitfalls that can get an appeal dismissed without ever being heard on its legal merits. Kean Miller’s appellate group members work closely with clients and trial lawyers from the onset of notable matters to develop case strategy, write dispositive motions, craft jury instructions, and identify and properly preserve issues for appellate review.  We also prepare amicus curiae briefs on matters of importance for our clients and the industries we serve. 

Our in-depth knowledge and experience with appellate procedures enables us to identify trial court errors that could potentially influence the outcome of a case and develop and present persuasive arguments with brevity and clarity to the courts of appeal. Many of our appellate attorneys are former judicial clerks of federal and state courts and leverage their experiences to the benefit of our clients. 

We represent clients as appellate counsel and amicus in all Louisiana and Texas state and federal courts, including the Louisiana and Texas Supreme Courts, the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals, and Louisiana and Texas State Courts of Appeal. We represent clients as appellate counsel on a broad range of issues, including class actions, toxic tort exposure, state and local taxation, commercial and contract litigation, securities fraud, patent infringement, personal injury, criminal and commercial matters. We have pursued many “first-ever” legal strategies and frequently help create new law in Louisiana and Texas. Whether we represent appellants, appellees, or amici, we maintain our focus on the client’s objective.

Representative Experience
  • D90 Energy, LLC v. Jefferson Davis Parish Board of Review, 341 So. 3d 492 (La. 10/20/2020).  Representation of multiple oil and gas companies in successfully contesting ad valorem (property) tax assessments and the right of taxpayers to effectively appeal an adverse determination of market value by an assessor. 
  • Chodniewicz v. Art.com, Inc., A0159720 (9/21/2021). Representation of plaintiffs in a unanimous decision by the Court of Appeal of the State of California., First Appellate District, Division Two, that reversed dismissal of several defendants from an ongoing shareholder derivative suit. 
  • Hero Lands Co., L.L.C. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 2022-0224 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/7/23), 359 So. 3d 130.  Successful representation of defendant against appeal of jury’s rejection of claims for more than $120 million in remediation damages related to alleged contamination from oil and gas operations.
  • Hero Lands Co., L.L.C. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 2022-0383 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/22/23), --- So.3d ----2023 WL 3579049.  Representation of defendant in obtaining a unanimous reversal of the trial court’s ruling on scope of attorneys’ fees and cost recoverable under Act 312.  
  • Mechelle Rugg, et. al. v. Horseshoe Entertainment, LA Second Circuit, 2023.  Representation of entertainment industry company in a Writ Application filed with the Second Circuit after the Trial Court improperly denied its Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of whether a business owner/merchant owes a duty to someone for the negligent and/or intentional acts of a third party, that cause harm.  The Second Circuit granted the Writ and is requesting briefing on the issue of whether, and to what extent, La. R.S. 9:2800.1 is applicable to this case. 
  • Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation, et. al., 79 So.3d 246 (La. 2011). Eagle Pipe resulted in what is now widely looked upon as controlling jurisprudence on the subsequent purchaser doctrine in Louisiana, dismissing the claims of a subsequent purchaser of real property that had been allegedly contaminated prior to the purchase.  Because the subsequent purchaser did not obtain an explicit assignment of the right to sue for property damage, which is a personal right under Louisiana law, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the underlying claims.  
  • State v. Louisiana Land & Expl. Co., 2020-00685 (La. 6/1/22), 339 So. 3d 1163. Representation of defendant in successfully obtaining reversal of prior Louisiana Supreme Court decision on the availability of monetary damages for additional remediation in excess of the requirements of regulatory standards as “palpable error” as to whether a plaintiff can recover damages beyond the most feasible plan structured under Act 312. 
  • Lexington Land Dev., L.L.C. v. Chevron Pipeline Co., 2020-0622 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/25/21), 327 So. 3d 8. In this legacy case, Chevron moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred because the plaintiff knew of enough information to call for an inquiry about the environmental condition of the property more than a year before the plaintiff filed suit. The trial court granted our motion and dismissed Chevron. The plaintiff appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the First Circuit, and I drafted our appellate brief. On appeal, the First Circuit unanimously affirmed Chevron’s dismissal. 
  • Lexington Land Dev., L.L.C. v. Chevron Pipeline Co., 2020-0622 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/25/21), 327 So. 3d 8, 13, reh'g denied (July 13, 2021), writ denied, 2021-01194 (La. 11/17/21), 327 So. 3d 996. Successful representation of Defendant against Plaintiffs’ appeal that is claims were not barred by prescription. 
  • Carla Echeverry v. Phillip Padgett, et. al., US Fifth Circuit, 20-30038.  Representation of entertainment industry company in a final appeal on the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination that the company was liable for the negligent hiring of an independent contractor and the excessiveness of the jury award.  At the United States Fifth Circuit the jury’s liability determination was affirmed but the Court reversed the jury award.  The Court found the million-dollar jury award was excessive for future pain and suffering for ankle injuries suffered by a 33-year-old pedestrian with life expectancy of 52.2 years who was struck by manlift, even adjusted for inflation and with 50 percent enhancement provided for under Louisiana law, and thus the trial court abused its discretion in denying casino operator’s motion for new trial or remittitur on negligence claims.  The jury award was vacated and remanded to the Trial Court for a new trial on damages or a remittitur determination.  Echeverry v. Jazz Casino Co., L.L.C., 988 F.3d 221, 229 (5th Cir. 2021).  
  • Louisiana Wetlands, LLC v. Energen Res. Corp., 2021-0290 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/4/21), 330 So. 3d 674.  In this legacy case, Chevron moved for summary judgment, arguing that the original plaintiff, which was a limited liability company formed by the family members who owned the property for decades, lacked the right to sue because the limited liability company did not own the property at the time of the alleged damage. The trial court granted our motion and dismissed the claims of the limited liability company’s claims. The limited liability company appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the First Circuit,. On appeal, the First Circuit unanimously affirmed the judgment. 
  • State v. Louisiana Land & Expl. Co., 2017-830 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/14/18), 241 So. 3d 1258, writ denied, 2018-0476 (La. 9/28/18), 252 So. 3d 924. Successful representation of Defendant against Plaintiffs’ appeal that Plaintiff was the proper party to implement the most Feasible Plan under Act 312 (La. R.S. 30:29) 
  • State v. Louisiana Land & Expl. Co., 2015-0438 (La. 3/27/15), 161 So. 3d 648. Obtained reversal at the Louisiana Supreme Court of the Third Circuit’s pre-trial opinion that evidence and argument on Act 312 (La. R.S. 30:29) was not admissible at the jury trial. 
  • Andrepont v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 2021-357 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/23/22), 335 So. 3d 916. In this legacy case, Chevron moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs’ expert’s theory of causation was not based on sufficient facts or data and too speculative for a reasonable juror to conclude that Chevron caused the alleged damage. The trial court granted our motion and dismissed Chevron. The plaintiffs appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit, On appeal, the Third Circuit unanimously affirmed Chevron’s dismissal. 
  • Bundrick v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., 2014-993 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/4/15), 159 So. 3d 1137, 1140, writ denied, 2015-0557 (La. 11/16/15), 184 So. 3d 24., and Glob. Mktg. Sols., LLC v. Blue Mill Farms, Inc., 2013-2132 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/19/14), 153 So. 3d 1209, 1211, writ denied sub nom. Glob. Mktg. Sols., L.L.C. v. Blue Mill Farms, Inc., 2014-2572 (La. 4/23/15), 173 So. 3d 1164 - 184 So. 3d 24. Part of drafting team who successfully defended against Plaintiffs’ appeal that its claims were not barred by the subsequent purchaser doctrine. 
  • Fernea v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. No. 03-09-00566-CV (Tex. App.—Austin, 2011). Representation of Merrill Lynch in case in which the Austin Court of Appeals, addressing an issue on which there was scant Texas state appellate case law, unanimously ruled that there is no private cause of action for violations of NYSE and NASD (now FINRA) rules.
Cookie Settings