Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> How Appealing

Litigation

: How Appealing

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania declines to review lawfulness of preliminary injunction precluding the defendant from dissipating assets to become judgment-proof pending a trial on plaintiffs' claims

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania declines to review lawfulness of a preliminary injunction precluding the defendant from dissipating assets to become judgment-proof pending a trial on plaintiffs' claims: Simply looking at the percentages, a lawyer filing a brief in opposition to a request for discretionary review from the U.S. Supreme Court or a state court of last resort has a great likelihood of success, given the infrequency that such review is granted.

Nevertheless, there are some cases in which a request for review, on its face, has a good chance of being granted, and in that subset of cases the brief in opposition can play an important role.

Last October, I was asked to draft a Brief in Opposition to a Petition for Allowance of Appeal for filing in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in a case in which the petitioner was arguing that the intermediate appellate court's ruling was contrary to rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and the courts of seven other States. Among the attorneys for petitioner in that case was someone who until recently had served for many years as a Justice of the Pa. Supreme Court.

As you might imagine, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal, on its face, raised many seemingly persuasive reasons for Pa. Supreme Court review. Fortunately for our side of the case, I thought that the Brief in Opposition that I wrote on behalf of the plaintiffs provided a number of sound reasons for the Pa. Supreme Court to deny review. I was thus pleased to learn that on Tuesday of this week, Pennsylvania's highest court issued an order denying review.

Full post as published by How Appealing on June 19, 2008 (boomark / email).