www.loubar.org 6 Louisville Bar Briefs ©2025 Lenihan Real Estate, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Sotheby’s International Realty® and the Sotheby’s International Realty Logo are service marks licensed to Sotheby’s International Realty Affiliates LLC and used with permission. Lenihan Real Estate, LLC fully supports the principles of the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Opportunity Act. Each franchise is independently owned and operated. Any services or products provided by independently owned and operated franchisees are not provided by, affiliated with or related to Sotheby’s International Realty Affiliates LLC nor any of its affiliated companies. Laura Rice & Associates 502.595.8450
[email protected] lauramovesyou.com SCAN FOR LISTINGS Raising the Bar in Real Estate Performance. Excellence You Can See. Results You Can Feel. Is a Higher Court Appealing? Moving Beyond Emotional Response to Strategic Analysis Griffin Terry Sumner and Michelle Fox The question of whether to appeal an unfa- vorable verdict requires more than reflexive outrage at an unjust result. It demands careful analysis of legal merits, strategic implications, costs and precedential risks. This article ex- plores key considerations that should inform the decision to appeal. The Limited Scope of Appellate Review Unlike trial courts, which serve as forums for fact-finding and dispute resolution, appellate courts mainly ensure legal consistency and correct significant errors of law. This funda- mental difference shapes everything about the appellate process. An appeal is not a re-trial, nor does it provide opportunities to introduce new evidence, call additional witnesses or rehabilitate a poorly tried case. Instead, appel- late courts review a cold record to determine whether reversible error occurred. In essence, the world is limited to the record on appeal. Appellate courts are constrained by standards of review that often require substantial deference to trial court findings. The clearly erroneous standard for factual findings, the abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings and harmless error doc- trine all create significant hurdles to reversal. Understanding these constraints is essential to evaluating whether an appeal has realistic prospects for success. Even seemingly obvious errors may not war- rant reversal if they didn’t affect the outcome. The harmless error rule requires appellants to show not just that error occurred, but that it was prejudicial. In cases with overwhelm- ing evidence supporting the verdict, even significant evidentiary errors may be treated as harmless. On the other hand, structural errors — such as denial of the right to coun- sel or trial before a biased judge — require automatic reversal regardless of prejudice. Evaluating Appealability and Preservation The threshold question in any appeal is whether the issue is even appealable. The final judgment rule generally restricts appeals to orders that fully dispose of all claims and parties. While certain interlocutory orders are immediately appealable under specific statutory provisions or the collateral order doctrine, many rulings can be challenged only after final judgment. Counsel must un- derstand these jurisdictional requirements to avoid wasting resources on premature appeals or missing narrow appellate windows. Equally critical is the question of preserva- tion. Appellate courts typically refuse to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, absent plain error or other extraor- dinary circumstances. This means trial coun- sel must make timely and specific objections, obtain rulings on those objections and — in some jurisdictions — renew objections or make offers of proof to preserve issues. As a result, trial counsel should be unabashed in her defense of the record as she builds the framework for appeal. Evaluating what was actually preserved for review requires careful scrutiny of the trial transcript. The preservation requirement creates stra- tegic challenges when trial and appellate (Continued on next page) PROFESSIONAL EXCELLENCE “ The question is not whether trial counsel could handle the appeal competently, but whether specialized appellate counsel might handle it better— and whether the stakes justify that investment.
2026 03 March
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
