Practice Areas
Apellate Practice
At Gargiulo / Rudnick, LLP, we understand the nuances between trial advocacy and appellate representation. Our skilled appellate attorneys excel at crafting persuasive arguments, whether preserving a favorable trial result or seeking to overturn an unfavorable one. With deep experience in Massachusetts state appellate courts, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and beyond, we know what appellate judges need to hear for successful outcomes.
Expertise
Strategy
Appellate Advocacy
We deliver tailored, precise arguments designed to resonate with appellate judges and achieve favorable outcomes.
Courtroom Experience
Our extensive work in state and federal appellate courts gives us the insight to navigate complex legal challenges effectively.
Strategic Reframing
We reformulate trial issues into clear, compelling appellate arguments that align with judicial expectations.
Notable Appellate Representation
- Tanner et al. v. Sherwood, 98 Mass. App. Ct. 112 (2020)(Rule 23.0 Decision)
- Hall v. Bridier, 2015-P-1583 (2-7-2017)(Order Awarding Appellate Attorney’s Fees)
- David Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, et al., , 741 F.3d 295 (1st Cir. 2014)
- Nichols v. Pritzker, 84 Mass.App.Ct. 1106 (2012) (Rule 1:28 decision)
- U.S. ex rel. Estate of Cunningham v. Millennium Laboratories of California, Inc., 713 F.3d 662 (1st Cir. 2013)
- RCS Group, Inc. v. Lamonica Construction Co. Inc., 75 Mass. App. Ct. 613 (2009)
- Seagate, Inc. v. Bridier, 2008 Mass. App. Ct. LEXIS 534 (Mass. App, Ct. Aug. 22, 2008) (Rule 1:28 decision) aff’d
- Dann v. Patten, et al., 73 Mass.App.Ct. 1105 (2008) (Rule 1:28 decision)
- Perry, Jr. et al v.Conservation Commission of Barnstable et al., 65 Mass.App.Ct. 1127 (2006) (Rule 1:28 decision)
- MacFarland v. RCS Group, Inc., 2004-P-1530 (2006) (Rule 1:28 decision)
- Orrall v. French v. Parkinson, 2004-P-290 (2005)(Rule 1:28 decision)
- Berdichevsky v. Board of Registration in Dentistry, SJ 2003-0234 (2004) (Rule 1:28 decision)
- Hart v. Board of Registration in Dentistry, SJ-2003-0235 (2004) (Rule 1:28 decision)
- Doe v. Creighton, 439 Mass. 281 (2003)
- American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Bernardi’s, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 2d. 27 (D. Mass. 2002) aff’d American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Richard Lundgren, Inc., 314 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2002)
- Commonwealth v. Russo, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 579 (2000)
- American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Bernardi’s, Inc., 113 F. Supp 2d 54 (D. Mass. 1999)
- America Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Bernardi’s, Inc., 198 F.3d 293 (1st Cir. 1999)
- American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Bernardi’s, Inc., 113 F. Supp.2d 58 (D. Mass. 1999)
- Lundgren, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 45 Mass. App. Ct. 410 (1998)
- U.S. v. Billmyer, 57 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 1995)
- U.S. v. Portalla, 985 F.2d 621 (1st Cir. 1993)