The stakes run high in an appeal. Our depth of experience inspires confidence in both co-counsel and clients. Our Arizona appeals attorneys are knowledgeable advocates who have successfully argued key cases before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Arizona Supreme Court, BAP court, federal appeals courts, specialty courts, and other appellate venues.

Jaburg Wilk’s versatile appellate attorneys tackle diverse cases that frequently fall within Arizona state or federal appellate court jurisdiction, with special emphasis in labor and employment law, family law, bankruptcy law, commercial litigation, constitutional law, civil rights litigation and Amicus Curiae briefs. We strive to succeed where others have failed. Whether as independent counsel or in an advisory capacity, we bring case strategic planning, thorough research, superior writing, and strong advocacy that are unique and essential in successful appeals.

Published Cases

Some of our notable appellate successes are listed below.

  • Rogone v. Sasser, –P. 3d —(9/25/2014) Click here to read decision.
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen 231 Ariz. 209, 292 P.3d 195 (App. 2012)
  • BT Capital, LLC v. TD Service Co. of Arizona 229 Ariz. 299, 275 P.3d 598(Ariz.2012)
  • In re Estate of Friedman, 217 Ariz. 548, 177 P.3d 290 (App.2008)
  • Knappenberger v. City of Phoenix 566 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2009)
  • Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C., 228 Ariz. 502, 269 P.3d 678 (App. 2011)
  • BT Capital, LLC v. TD Service Company of Arizona (CV-11-0308-PR). Arizona Supreme Court Opinion filed vacating the court of appeals’ opinion, affirming the Superior Court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of PCF and TD, and granting PCF’s request for attorney’s fees. Read Opinion
  • Telesaurus VPC, LLC v. Power, 623 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2010). With respect to plaintiff’s claims under the Federal Communications Act (FCA), the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that our client was a “common carrier” subject to suit under the FCA. Plaintiff’s claims under Arizona law for conversion, unjust enrichment, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage were expressly preempted by FCA. Read Opinion
  • Prince & Princess Enterprises, LLC v. State ex rel. Arizona Dept. of Health Services, 2008 WL 4405177 (Ariz.App. Div 1) (Sept. 30, 2008).
  • In re Estate of Friedman, 217 Ariz. 548, 177 P.3d 290 (App. 2008). Only when an heir who raises a claim under the Adult Protective Services Act in a probate proceeding acts with malice, i.e., that his primary purpose was other than to protect the adult or the estate, can the heir be required to pay the costs of the special administrator’s investigation into a claim of elder abuse.
  • Rackmaster Systems, Inc. v. Maderia, 219 Ariz. 60, 193 P.3d 314 (App. 2008). The trial court had concluded that a creditor could garnish an Arizona bank account belonging to both spouses to satisfy a Minnesota judgment against the husband, in connection with a guaranty signed only by the husband. We represented the wife on appeal, and were successful in reversing the trial court’s decision. The Court of Appeals held that the community bank account was not subject to a writ of garnishment absent the wife’s signature on the guaranty.
  • Anderson v. Contes, 212 Ariz. 122, 128 P.3d 239 (App. 2006). The Court of Appeals held that a husband in a divorce proceeding was not entitled to a new judge as a matter of right following remand based on insufficiency of trial court’s findings.
  • Austin Shea (Arizona) 7th Street and Van Buren, L.L.C. v. City of Phoenix, 213 Ariz. 385, 142 P.3d 693 (App. 2006). Where credible evidence supports the Board of Adjustment’s decision that its prior decision constituted manifest error, the board could properly rehear the case.
  • Case Corporation v. Gehrke, 208 Ariz. 140, 91 P.3d 362 (App. 2004). A retailer’s use of sale proceeds gave rise to a viable conversion claim, as supplier had security interest in such proceeds.
  • Krohn v. Sweetheart Properties, Ltd., 203 Ariz. 205, 52 P.3d 774 (2002). Filed amicus brief on behalf of trustees’ association.
  • Paxson v. Glovitz, 203 Ariz. 63, 50 P.3d 420 (App. 2002). Described standards for imposition of prescriptive easement.
  • Burns v. Davis, 196 Ariz. 155, 993 P.2d 1119 (App. 1999). Established level of privilege in defamation cases.
  • Barnes v. Outlaw, 192 Ariz. 283, 964 P.2d 484 (1998). Recognizing loss of consortium for purely emotional injuries – (cited in 21 cases).
  • In re Estate of Ryan, 187 Ariz. 311, 928 P.2d 735 (App. 1996). Established right of inheritance from biological parent where child was adopted by step parent.
  • Valley Nat’l Bank of Arizona v. Kohlhase, 182 Ariz. 436, 897 P.2d 738 (App. 1995).Examined election of remedies issues.
  • Gasho v. United States, 39 F.3d 1420 (9th Cir, 1994)(Fourth Amendment constitutional issues) (cited in 298 cases and in treatises on constitutional law).
  • Mid Kansas Federal S&L Assn of Wichita v. Dynamic Development Corp., 167 Ariz. 122, 804 P.2d 1310 (1991). Established parameters of AZ anti-deficiency statutes.
  • Corporate Investment Business Brokers v. Melcher, 824 F.2d 786 (9th Cir. 1987).Approved assertion of jurusdiction over out-of-state franchisee.
  • Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, 162 Ariz. 335, 783 P.2d 781 (1989). Established standards for invasion of privacy claims.
  • Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, 152 Ariz. 9, 730 P.2d 186 (1986). Invalidated AZ’s retraction statues as unconstitutional.
  • Miller v. American Express Co., 688 F.2d 1235 (9th Cir. 1982) American Express violated Fair Credit Reporting Act.
  • Phares v. Nutter, 125 Ariz. 291, 609 P.2d 561 (1980). Established ground for relief from judgment registered under Revised Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Act.