Services Appellate

Effective appellate advocacy begins before trial. From the inception of any notable dispute, Kean Miller’s appellate group works closely with clients and trial lawyers to develop both a factual and legal positions that will withstand appellate scrutiny and to ensure any error is preserved for a potential appeal. We also prepare amicus curiae briefs on matters of importance for national industry and special-interest groups, 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 and amicus counsel in state and federal courts, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Louisiana and Texas Supreme Courts, and Louisiana and Texas 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 interests and objectives.

Representative Experience

• Louisiana Wetlands, LLC v. Energen Res. Corp., 403 So. 3d 1251 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2024). Representation of defendants in obtaining a unanimous reversal of the trial court’s ruling on scope of attorneys’ fees and cost recoverable under a statutory fee-shifting provision in environmental litigation.
• Rugg v. Horseshoe Entertainment, 378 So. 3d 323 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2024). 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, reversed judgment, and granted our Motion for Summary Judgment based on the plaintiff’s inability to produce evidence that our client was responsible for third-party negligence.
• Henning Management, LLC v. Chevron USA Inc., 2024 WL 2860241 (5th Cir. 2024). Representation of defendant in interlocutory appeal resulting in unanimous reversal of the district court’s order requiring remediation of alleged environmental contamination from oil and gas operations.
• Hero Lands Co. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 359 So. 3d 130 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2023). 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. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 382 So. 3d 271 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2023). Representation of defendant in obtaining a unanimous reversal of the trial court’s ruling on the scope of attorneys’ fees and costs recoverable under a statutory fee-shifting provision in environmental litigation.
• Hero Lands Co. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 381 So. 3d 737 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2023). Representation of defendant in the plaintiff’s appeal challenging the plan structured by an administrative agency and approved by the trial court for evaluation of environmental damage from oil and gas operations.
• Louisiana Wetlands, LLC v. Energen Res. Corp., 380 So. 3d 38 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2023). Representation of defendant in the plaintiff’s appeal challenging the plan structured by an administrative agency and approved by the trial court for evaluation of environmental damage from oil and gas operations. On appeal, the First Circuit unanimously held that the applicable statute allows courts to approve plans that call solely for “evaluation” of the environmental damage, without any requirement for remediation.
• State v. Louisiana Land & Expl. Co., 339 So. 3d 1163 (La. 2022). 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 plan for a regulatory cleanup structured by an administrative agency.
• Andrepont v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 335 So. 3d 916 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2022). Representation of defendant in appeal from judgment dismissing all claims in case involving alleged environmental contamination from oil and gas operations. On appeal, the Third Circuit unanimously held 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 the defendant caused the alleged damage.
• Chodniewicz v. Art.com, Inc., 2021 WL 4449253 (Cal. Ct. App. 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.
• Lexington Land Dev., L.L.C. v. Chevron Pipeline Co., 327 So. 3d 8 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2021). Representation of defendant in appeal from judgment dismissing all claims as time-barred under the statute of limitations in case involving alleged environmental contamination from oil and gas operations.
• Echeverry v. Jazz Casino Co., 988 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2021). 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 for a new trial on damages or a remittitur determination.
• Louisiana Wetlands, LLC v. Energen Res. Corp., 330 So. 3d 674 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2021). Representation of defendant in appeal from judgment dismissing claims brought by a limited liability company in case involving alleged environmental contamination from oil and gas operations. On appeal, the First Circuit unanimously held that the company lacked the right to sue because it did not own the property when the alleged damage occurred.
• D90 Energy, LLC v. Jefferson Davis Parish Board of Review, 341 So. 3d 492 (La. 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.
• Global Marketing Solutions, LLC v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 286 So. 3d 1054 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2019). Representation of defendant in appeal from judgment dismissing all claims as barred by res judicata in case involving alleged environmental contamination from oil and gas operations.
• State v. Louisiana Land & Expl. Co., 241 So. 3d 1258 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2018). Representation of defendant against plaintiffs’ appeal challenging the plan structured by an administrative agency and approved by the trial court for a regulatory cleanup of environmental damage.
• State v. Louisiana Land & Expl. Co., 161 So. 3d 648 (La. 2015). Obtained reversal at the Louisiana Supreme Court of the Third Circuit’s pre-trial opinion that evidence and argument about statutory procedures for a regulatory cleanup of environmental damage was not admissible at the jury trial.
• Bundrick v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., 159 So. 3d 1137 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2015). Representation of defendant in appeal from judgment dismissing all claims in case involving alleged environmental contamination from oil and gas operations because the plaintiff did not own the property when the alleged damage occurred.
• Global Marketing Solutions, LLC v. Blue Mill Farms, Inc., 153 So. 3d 1209 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2014). Representation of defendant in appeal from judgment dismissing all claims in case involving alleged environmental contamination from oil and gas operations because the plaintiff did not own the property when the alleged damage occurred.
• Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation, 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.
• Fernea v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. 559 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. App. 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.