Premier Destination for Sophisticated Buyers of Legal Services
Home > Law Firm Profile > Practice Areas & Industries > Group Profile

Practice Areas & Industries: Lane Powell PC

 



Lane Powell PC


Group Profile Lawyers in this Group Offices Locations for this Group
 

Practice/Industry Group Overview

After a hard-fought trial, it is vital that representation at the next level be provided by experienced lawyers who know the battlefield. Consider: In 1950, there were 40 appellate filings per federal appellate judge; by 1990, there were 200; today, there are well over 300. The story is the same in state courts. These numbers underscore the importance of advocacy that stands out by its excellence. It is that characteristic that sets Lane Powell’s appellate lawyers apart. They specialize not only in appellate procedure, but in appellate persuasion.

The experience of the Firm’s appellate attorneys is reflected by their involvement in significant cases that have shaped the development of law in state and federal courts. The following recent cases illustrate the breadth of that experience:

  • Hunter v. Home Depot, 270 Fed.Appx. 654, 2008 WL 754777 (9th Cir. 2008) (employment discrimination)
  • Huntsinger v. UnumProvident, 268 Fed.Appx. 518, 2008 WL 510534 (9th Cir. 2008) (ERISA benefits)
  • Northwest Gas Ass’n v. Washington Utilities & Transp. Com’n, 141 Wn. App. 98, 168 P.3d 443 (2007) (Public Records Act)
  • Emmert v. Artisan, 497 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2007) (interstate transportation)
  • Resident Councils of Washington v. Leavitt, 500 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2007) (amicus curiae; nursing regulation challenge)
  • Dahlke v. Cascade Acoustics, Inc., 216 Or. App. 27, 171 P.3d 992 (2007) (successor liability)
  • Wah Chang v. PacifiCorp, 212 Or. App. 14, 157 P.3d 243 (2007) (electricity market manipulation)
  • Buck v. SeaRiver Maritime, 211 Or. App. 324, 154 P.3d 750 (2007) (Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act)
  • Brown v. Brown, 206 Or. App. 239, 136 P.3d 745 (2006) (trust litigation)
  • Skidmore v. Clark, 205 Or. App. 592, 135 P.3d 367 (2006) (roadway easement dispute)
  • Schreiner v. Hulbert, 2005 WL 1473946 (9th Cir. 2005) (judicial immunity/state actor)
  • Betz v. Ganos, 196 Or. App. 5, 100 P.3d 756 (2004) (will contest)
  • Hamoui v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2004) (immigration)
  • Kelly v. Fleetwood, 377 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2004) (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act)
  • Magana v. Hyundai Motor America, 123 Wn. App. 306, 94 P.3d 987 (2004) (crashworthiness)
  • Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Edwards, 538 U.S. 974, 123 S. Ct. 1781, 155 L. Ed.2d 662 (2003) (amicus curiae; judicial review of punitive damages)
  • Longwood Village Condo. Ass’n v. Aetna Casualty, 2003 WL 22766047 (Wash. App. 2003) (insurance coverage)
  • Lund v. San Joaquin Valley Railroad, 1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 412, 71 P.3d 770 (2003) (FELA)
  • Moore Excavating v. Consol. Supply Co., 186 Or. App. 324, 63 P.3d 592 (2003) (indemnity)
  • Multicare Health System v. Dep’t of Health, 118 Wn. App. 597, 77 P.3d 363 (2003) (hospital siting)
  • Burg v. Shannon & Wilson, 110 Wn. App. 798, 43 P.3d 526 (2002) (engineering malpractice)
  • City of Seattle v. Burlington Northern RR Co., 145 Wn.2d 661, 41 P.3d 1169 (2002) (preemption of local regulations)
  • Oki v. Wells Fargo Bank, 298 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 2002) (RICO)
  • 1519-1525 Lakeview Blvd. Condominium Ass’n v. Apartment Sales Corp., 144 Wn.2d 570, 29 P.3d 1249 (2001) (architect malpractice)
  • Citizens for Natural Habitat v. City of Lakewood, 2001 WL 950827 (Wash. App. 2001) (land use)
  • Guijosa v. Wal Mart, 144 Wn.2d 907, 32 P.3d 250 (2001) (public accommodations)
  • Hadley v. Maxwell, 144 Wn.2d 306, 27 P.3d 600 (2001) (collateral estoppel)
  • Hill v. BCTI, 144 Wn.2d 172, 23 P.3d 440 (2001) (employment discrimination)
  • Rhoads v. Evergreen Utilities Contractors, Inc., 105 Wn. App. 419, 20 P.3d 460 (2001) (LMRA preemption)
  • Nike, Inc. v. Northwestern Pacific, 166 Or. App. 312, 999 P.2d 1197, on rehearing, 167 Or. App. 322, 1 P.3d 1060 (2000), rev. denied, 332 Or. 137 (2001) (coverage action by insured)

The members of the Appellate Practice Group are known for their skill and credibility in the courts in which they appear and that, in the end, can make all of the difference.


 
Group Presentations
  Sondag to Speak at Multnomah Bar Association Program, Portland, May 28, 2009
 
Past Seminar Materials
  Sondag to Speak at Oregon Association of Defense Counsel's Annual Fall Seminar, Portland, November 7, 2008
 
 
Articles Authored by Lawyers at this office:

Supreme Court Rules Punitive Damages Available in Maintenance and Care Cases
, July 06, 2009
In Atlantic Sounding vs. Townsend (2009 U.S. Lexis 4732), a sharply divided Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 5-4 decision on June 25, 2009, that an injured seaman may recover punitive damages for his employer's willful failure to pay maintenance and cure.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Disparate Treatment Discrimination Claims under ADEA
, July 06, 2009
On June 19, 2009, the United States Supreme Court rejected a "mixed-motive" analysis and held that plaintiffs bringing disparate treatment claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 621 et seq., must prove by a preponderance of the...

U.S. Supreme Court Enforces Arbitration Rights: Potential Tool for Insureds?
, June 17, 2009
On May 4, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court held that non-signatories to an arbitration agreement may obtain a stay of claims in favor of arbitration under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). The decision resolves a circuit split and allows non-signatory, third parties to...

U.S. Supreme Court Permits Cost-Benefit Analysis to Relax Regulation of Power Plants under the Clean Water Act
, April 22, 2009
The U.S. Supreme Court has approved the use of cost-benefit analysis to determine which waterintake technologies power plants must employ under the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C. Sections 1251-1387 (1977).