Appellate Practice

Hurrell Cantrall LLP’s appellate practice remains a longstanding and integral facet of our firm. Our approach at the appellate level is to aggressively represent our clients by staying abreast of new developments in the law and writing persuasive and effective briefs.  We regularly handle appeals and writs in state and federal court.    

Our attorneys have been involved in all aspects of the appeals process in a wide range of practice areas, including government liability, police misconduct litigation and actions filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, products liability, professional liability, elder abuse, premises liability and general liability.

We have represented a wide variety of clients from individuals to government and corporate entities in appellate matters involving a wide range of legal issues.

                Illustrative Cases

▪      Plaintiff prisoner alleged he went blind after cleaning products splashed in his face. A motion for summary judgment was granted on behalf of the public-entity defendant and demurrers were sustained without leave to amend on behalf of the individual peace officers and medical defendants.  The rulings were upheld on appeal, as the public entity was entitled to immunity under Government Code § 844.6 and the exception for failure to render immediate medical care did not apply as appellant failed to include such allegations in his claim under Government Code § 911.2. 

▪      High-profile plaintiff’s attorney limited to $200 hourly fee in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in an action decided in 2008.

▪      Plaintiff alleged he was battered by a peace officer at the Department of Social Security. A motion for terminating sanctions was granted in favor of defendant public-entity and defendant officer.  The ruling was affirmed at the appellate level, with the appellate court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with proper discovery procedures.

▪      In case involving allegations of severe personal injuries resulting from a collision, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling that a plaintiff was not entitled to prejudgment interest and expert fees after serving Code of Civil Procedure § 998 demand to defendants, as plaintiff could not establish that defendants were jointly and severally liable. Burch v. Children’s Hospital of Orange County Thrift Stores, Inc., (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 537.

▪      In a medical-malpractice claim, defendant alleged it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to allow photographs of an elderly woman’s bedsores, taken a few days after her death, to be shown to the jury, pursuant to Evidence Code § 325. The ruling was affirmed on appeal, and the court found that relaxed evidentiary standards should not apply to elder abuse cases under Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657.  Akers v. Miller, (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1143