Bona Law PC attorneys have substantial experience representing clients in both state and federal appeals.
After graduating from Harvard Law School, Principal Jarod Bona clerked for a federal appellate judge, Judge James B. Loken, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He then began his career as an appellate and constitutional law litigator in Washington, DC for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. He has argued appeals in both state and federal courts and maintains an active appellate practice.
William Markham, a 1987 Harvard Law School graduate, has also both brought and defended appeals in state and federal courts.
Aaron Gott has participated in appeals for parties and amici in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit, the Eighth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit and the Minnesota Supreme Court.
We have the flexibility to handle appeals on a flat-fee basis and are willing to assist attorneys with less appellate experience at any stage of the process. It is very important to consult with an attorney with appellate experience during all stages of litigation (1) to avoid waiving or losing arguments on appeal; (2) to make sure that you build the record effectively for an appeal; and (3) to better understand how your case theory will hold up on appeal.
In addition, appellate courts apply a specialized standard of review and it is important that your attorney is familiar with the practical issues surrounding these standards.
Bona Law PC can help you with your appeals in state and federal court, as well as from administrative proceedings, which have their own special standard of review.
Bona Law attorneys have particular experience in the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and Ninth Circuit, and the Minnesota and California state courts, including the Minnesota and California Supreme Courts.
To read more about our approach to appellate litigation, please review the following articles on The Antitrust Attorney Blog:
Amicus Curiae Briefs
We also have extensive experience filing amicus briefs on behalf of clients in state and federal courts. These “friend of the court” briefs are designed to educate the Court on one or more issues that our client cares about.
For example, Jarod Bona and Aaron Gott recently filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in North Carolina Dental Examiners v. FTC, relating to antitrust and state-action immunity issues. Jarod Bona also filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., arguing that a market-participant exception should apply to state-action immunity from the antitrust laws.
Bona Law PC attorneys have also filed several amicus briefs in state appellate and supreme courts. For example, Jarod Bona and Aaron Gott filed an amicus brief in the Minnesota Supreme Court in a property rights case involving municipal power and real estate.
Below are just some of the cases where Bona Law PC attorneys have filed amicus briefs.
- U.S. Supreme Court: North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC (antitrust action against state licensing board, involving issues of state-action immunity).
- U.S. Supreme Court: FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. (antitrust action involving hospital merger with governmental entity, involving issues of state-action immunity).
- United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: Johnson & Johnson Vision Care v. Reyes.
- United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit: American Farmers Bureau Federation v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (supporting privacy rights of small businesses and farmers).
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: Colon Health Centers of America v. Hazel (constitutional case challenging Virginia state certificate-of-need law under the Dormant Commerce Clause)
- Minnesota Supreme Court: Dean et al. v. City of Winona (Real estate and property rights case involving a challenge to a municipal rental ban).
- Minnesota Supreme Court: Lorraine White, Trustee v. City of Elk River (Real estate and property rights case involving zoning and a municipality's attempt to terminate a non-conforming use).
- Minnesota Supreme Court: McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing (Real estate and property rights case challenging constitutionality of a rental inspection ordinance and certain administrative warrants).
- California Supreme Court: Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Challenge relating to public disclosure of competing proposals submitted to a public agency relating to an airport lease)
- California Supreme Court: Siebel v. Mittlesteadt (holding that a post-judgment settlement constitutes favorable termination in a malicious prosecution action where the plaintiff received a favorable judgment in the underlying action and settled without giving up that judgment).