A Sample of Previous Cases

The exemplar cases below are just a selection of many appellate cases over the years. Barbara is energetic in using her skills to develop a winning strategy. The exemplar cases below demonstrate some effective case strategies.

Ohio Twelfth District Court of Appeals / Supreme Court of Ohio

A NEW LEGAL EXCEPTION - When a client was paralyzed from a fall on a trampoline, Barbara had to discover how to craft a new legal principle to fit the fact pattern of the case. After a trial court granted summary judgment against her client, Barbara identified an applicable and persuasive principle of law for adoption by the court of appeals. She investigated ideas through law review articles, practitioner blogs, and any source available and discovered two scientific facts about the dangers of trampolines that users did not commonly know. Because the client was not warned about these two dangers, Barbara encouraged the appellate court to create a new exception in Ohio law. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals accepted her argument, thereby allowing Barbara to secure victory for her client. The other side did not seek review by the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attorneys throughout the country with clients injured on trampolines have contacted Barbara over the years to learn about this winning strategy.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

A NEW APPLICATION OF LAW - Sometimes, the key to crafting a winning argument in an appellate court does not come from the facts of the case but from finding obscure case law. When a California regulatory licensing statute prevented an Ohio company from obtaining a license without re-incorporating in California, Barbara conducted a deep dive into constitutional law treatises, legal scholar blogs, case law spanning more than 100 years, and other sources. She discovered that a lesser-known principle of U. S. constitutional law (the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U. S. Constitution) precluded one state from requiring a company to switch its incorporation state to get a license. A California court had never considered this constitutional issue regarding the particular licensing statute. The trial court refused to grant relief. Ultimately, however, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and found that the licensing statute violated the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U. S. Constitution. In this case, Barbara managed the litigation strategy for clients, working together with other counsel on the briefs and oral argument.

Ohio First District Court of Appeals / Supreme Court of Ohio

THE ART OF PERSUASION - Finding a way to summarize in short sentences what your case is about and why you should win is high art in the appellate court. Following a win in the trial court, the Ohio First District Court of Appeals affirmed Barbara’s interpretation of a contract, which included a non-compete provision, thereby guaranteeing her client (a chef) the right to start a new restaurant. The key to winning this case was a detailed analysis of the meaning of a contract’s words, combined with the canons of statutory interpretation, all leading to a common-sense narrative and a favorable ruling for her client. The other side tried to overturn this decision, but Barbara opposed it, and the Supreme Court of Ohio denied discretionary review.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DEVELOPING LAW TREND - In another one of Barbara’s cases, she was among the first group of attorneys in the United States to argue that jurisdiction can exist in Ohio over an out-of-state company that publishes defamatory material about an Ohio company on the internet. While too early in the law’s development for her client to win, eventually, the law changed. The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted a similar case and established the new principle of law Barbara had presented — that jurisdiction can exist in Ohio over an out-of-state defendant that publishes defamatory material on the internet. Moreover, in that case, Barbara was among the first attorneys in the United States to argue that a statute of limitations should be extended as long as the material remains live and accessible through internet searches. The Fifth Circuit did not accept this argument at that time. But her ideas led to an extensive analysis by the court and broad coverage in legal publications. Consequently, the case served to create awareness for the out-of-state publisher and other publishers to be more cautious in the future.

Ohio First Appellate District / Supreme Court of Ohio

DEFEND JURY VERDICT - After Barbara and co-counsel successfully won a $1.5 million jury verdict in a medical malpractice case involving surgical error, the defendant appealed. This high-dollar verdict was enhanced with prejudgment interest of nearly $500,000 for lack of good faith in settlement efforts. On appeal, the defendant listed numerous assignments of error, including impermissible testimony from multiple witnesses, improper closing arguments, the denial of a new trial, the denial of a remittitur, and the award of prejudgment interest. Barbara’s strategy on appeal required her to delicately blend the relevant principles of law and a common-sense presentation of a complicated set of facts. Ultimately, she was successful in securing complete victory for her client. Barbara next opposed a motion before the Supreme Court of Ohio to stay execution of the judgment. In the end, the defendant withdrew the case from the Supreme Court of Ohio.