The rules are different in appellate courts, and a panel of appellate judges is a unique audience. Zimmerman Booher is a unique law firm that focuses on appeals because we understand those rules and work with them to produce the best possible result for our clients. Our attorneys have the specific skills and experience necessary to maximize your chances of success in the appellate court.
Based in Salt Lake City, our attorneys have handled more than 250 appeals. Our emphasis is in the Utah Supreme Court and the Utah Court of Appeals, but our attorneys have handled appeals in courts across the country, including the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, the California Supreme Court, the California Court of Appeals, and the Nevada Supreme Court.
Below are just a few examples of oral arguments and briefs that demonstrate our work. Please contact us for additional examples and/or to discuss your case.
Helf v. Chevron (2015)
Troy L. Booher and Clemens A. Landau. Utah Supreme Court reverses summary judgment dismissing employee’s tort claim against Chevron based upon an industrial accident and interpreting Utah’s Worker’s Compensation Act.
Robinson v. Taylor (2015)
Michael D. Zimmerman, Troy L. Booher and Julie J. Nelson. Utah Supreme Court vacates medical malpractice verdict because evidence of prior criminal convention was inadmissible under rules 608 and 609.
State of Utah v. Bird (2015)
Simmons Media Group v. Waykar (2014)
Troy L. Booher and Beth E. Kennedy. Utah Court of Appeals affirms judgment declaring breach of a option agreement in an outdoor advertising lease and awarding lost profits damages.
State of Utah v. Larrabee (2013)
State v. Verde (2012)
Linda M. Jones arguing to the Utah Supreme Court against the admissibility of other acts evidence under Utah Rule of Evidence 404(b).
State v. Charles (2011)
Egbert v. Nissan Motor Co. (2010)
Michael D. Zimmerman and Troy L. Booher answering certified question in requiring apportionment of fault in crashworthiness cases and rejecting constitutional challenge to comparative fault statute.