Appellate Law

Butzel Longs appellate practice has a lengthy and distinguished record of success. Our representation in landmark cases include Groesbeck v. Michigan State Telephone Company, 172 N.W. 799 206 Mich. 372 (1919), where the Michigan Supreme Court acknowledged that the President can exert control over local telephone and telegraph lines under federal war time powers Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974), where the United States Supreme Court overturned the City of Detroits metropolitan cross-district school busing plan and Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), and Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), where the United States Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of the University of Michigan undergraduate and law schools affirmative action policies.

Our attorneys have a broad range of experience in appellate courts around the country. We have attorneys that have clerked for judges in the Michigan Supreme Court, and the United States Courts of Appeal. In recent years, we have prepared briefs and argued before the Michigan Court of Appeals the Michigan Supreme Court the United States Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Federal circuits and the United States Supreme Court. We also represent clients in appellate matters before federal and state administrative review bodies.

Clients frequently retain us to represent them in appeals to defend or challenge a result obtained by prior counsel. We represent individuals, entities, plaintiffs, and defendants.

Experience

  • Defense of major regional hospital system in an anti-trust case alleging conspiracy among hospital and physicians to exclude a cardiologist from the hospital staff
  • Defended major university and its president in a case challenging university's consideration of race in admissions decisions
  • Prepared an Amicus Curiae Brief to the U.S. supreme court urging the Court to grant states and local government units latitude in the regulation of firearms
  • Represented defendant/appellee in U.S. Supreme Court where, in a 7-2 ruling, the High Court held that predicate "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" in 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) need not include as an element a domestic relationship.
  • Advised Anti-Defamation League following unsuccessful appeal to Tenth Circuit for violation of federal Wiretap Law and common law defamation, and defeated subsequent attorneys' fee award application
  • Obtained dismissal of False Claims Act (“FCA”) lawsuit against healthcare provider and affirmance of dismissal in appeal (Chesbrough, et al. v. VPA, P.C. (6th Cir. August 23, 2011))
  • Filed amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of 13 state-specific mutual-bond funds, addressing the issue of whether income-tax exemption for interest income from in-state municipal bonds violates the Constitution's Commerce Clause

Publications

  • (Cleaned Up)
    June 1, 2018
    Michigan Appellate Practice Journal
Jump to Page