Kean Miller regularly represents clients in a wide variety of appellate matters. We represent clients as appellate counsel and amicus in all state and federal courts, including the Louisiana Supreme Court, the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals, and Louisiana 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, patent infringement, personal injury, criminal and commercial matters. Our appellate lawyers have prevailed in cases for over 40 years, and we have earned the respect and confidence of local, national, and international clients. Our Appellate Team has experience in identifying issues appropriate for appeal, briefing those issues, arguing before appellate courts and winning cases.
Whether we are on appellant, appellee, or amicus, we maintain our focus on the client’s objective. We have pursued many “first-ever” legal strategies and frequently help create new law in Louisiana.
- Representation of a physician on appeal before the Louisiana Supreme Court, which resulted in a favorable ruling for all Louisiana health providers enforcing the limited time period for potential plaintiffs to file a medical malpractice claim. Warren v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co., 2007-0492 (La. 12/2/08), 21 So.3d 186, rev.d on rehearing (La. 6/6/09).
- Representation of Chevron USA, Inc. in Hogg v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Docket Nos. 2009-CC-2632 and 2009-CC-2635 before the Louisiana Supreme Court. Successfully convinced the Court that the continuing presence of a contaminant on property does not constitute a continuing tort (trespass) that suspends the running of prescription.
- Kean Miller participated in an argument before the Louisiana Supreme Court, as amicus on behalf of the Louisiana Chemical Association, American Chemistry Council, and National Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., in Arabie v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (http://www.lasc.org/news_releases/2012/2012-014.asp). The Court, in a 5-2 decision, reversed the Third Louisiana Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision allowing punitive damages arising out of a Louisiana incident involving Louisiana plaintiffs by applying Texas law that allows for punitive damages. The lower court reasoned that the corporate headquarters located in Texas justified the use of Texas law, notwithstanding the fact Louisiana tort reforms of the mid-1990’s eliminated most punitive damages in Louisiana.
- Representation of the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association (LOGA) in connection with tax, liability, and environmental issues including a challenge to the valuation of subsurface oil and gas well properties for ad valorem tax purposes.
- Representation of the Louisiana Chemical Association, Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association, and the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, and industry clients as amicus curiae in various tax matters in the Louisiana Appellate Courts and Louisiana Supreme Court.
- Representation of the American Petroleum Institute, Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, Louisiana Independent Oil and Gas Association and the Louisiana Chemical Association as appellate counsel in filing numerous amicus briefs on behalf of the energy industry in matters before the Louisiana Supreme Court and Appellate courts.
- Representation of the Louisiana Municipal Association in filing amicus briefs on behalf of municipalities in matters related to municipal law issues.
- Representation of a prominent physician in the first United States Appellate Court decision in the nation on HIPAA compliance. The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is no private right of action under HIPAA and dismissed the plaintiff's claims against our client. Margaret A. Acara v. Bradley C. Banks, M.D., 470 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2006).
- Representation of Republic Finance/Fidelity in several appellate briefs to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals with regard to removal issues in numerous cases filed by consumers against our client arising out of consumer loans.
- Representation of Black & Decker in a significant products liability case before the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. While using a pneumatic brad nailer, the plaintiff was blinded in one eye after a nail ricocheted off of the work surface. The district court granted Black & Decker's summary judgment motion on the ground that the plaintiff did not satisfy his burden of proving the "risk/utility" element of a defective design claim under the Louisiana Product Liability Act. The United States Fifth Circuit affirmed the ruling.
- Representation of a major petrochemical company in the Louisiana Supreme Court in landmark class action decision that limits the ability of class claimants to claim that multiple sources of air discharges caused them long term exposure damages (Ford v. Murphy Oil Company, et al. 703 So2d 542)
- Representation of a chemical manufacturing company in the appeal of a class action case involving long-term exposure to chemicals from a site that was placed on the NPL
- Representation of an applicant before the Louisiana Supreme Court for a hazardous waste site permit in a landmark Louisiana case involving the interpretation of the Louisiana Environmental Control Act.
- Representation of manufacturer in claim of defective product resulting in property damage to apartment complex.
- Representation of Screening Systems International in Karen J. Richard, et al. v. Michael A. Hall, et al. We represented the appellee on appeal in a wrongful death suit that alleged vicarious liability and negligence against our client, the employer of defendant, Michael Hall, in an accidental shooting on a hunting trip. The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the granting of Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Screening Systems International.
- Representation of TC Properties of Baton Rouge LLC. We successfully defended the owner of a vessel against a claim that it violated the terms of a contract for a right of first refusal. We convinced the court in a motion for summary judgment that the plaintiff would not be able to prove that TC Properties violated the terms of the contract if a trial would have been held.
- Representation of Stephen Mumblow, appellant, in Stephen Mumblow v. Monroe Broadcasting at the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Convinced the Fifth Circuit to reverse the trial court decision in a case involving a claim for repayment of funds used as part of a corporate financing arrangement.
- Representation of the Louisiana Department of Labor through the Second Injury Fund in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., et al. v. W. Fox McKeithen, et al. at the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. We represented the Louisiana Department of Labor, the appellee, in a federal constitutional challenge to the assessment mechanism that funds the Second Injury Fund within the Office of Workers Compensation.
- Obtained reversal of a $250,000 judgment against a local municipality under the difficult manifest error standard by convincing the court of appeal that the inconsistencies in the plaintiff's story that his fall at an old warehouse on the city's property caused his serious back injury rendered his testimony unreliable and not trustworthy.
- Successfully defended a case at the United States Supreme Court against a local municipality and several police officers involving claims of federal conspiracy.
- Representation of the Applicant, Focus Health Care Management, Inc. in Broussard Physical Therapy v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 5 So.3d 812. In this case, a health care provider filed a disputed claim against the employer and its workers' compensation insurer, alleging that the employer and insurer underpaid or untimely paid medical bills incurred by a workers' compensation claimant. The employer and insurer filed a third party demand against the preferred provider organization (PPO). The PPO filed an exception for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which was denied by the Office of Workers' Compensation. The PPO filed a supervisory writ for review. The Court of Appeal, 981 So.2d 145, affirmed. Certiorari was granted. In a “landmark” decision, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the workers' compensation judge lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide a third party demand for defense and indemnification filed by an employer and a workers' compensation insurer against a PPO, because the third party demand was not a claim or dispute arising out of the Act, and instead merely related to the Act.