Atlanta Civil Appeals Attorneys

Published appellate experience

Miranda v. Fulton DeKalb Hospital Authority identifies Thomas G. Sampson II and Jeffrey E. Tompkins as counsel for the appellees; the Court of Appeals affirmed a directed verdict for the defendants. Read the healthcare defense case study.

Dixon v. MARTA identifies Jeffrey E. Tompkins and the historical firm among appellees’ counsel. The result was affirmed in part and reversed in part. Read the case study explaining both parts of the ruling.

Where TKST can help

Identify the issue that could change the result

Disagreement with an outcome is not enough to define an appeal. The assessment needs to identify the challenged ruling, the legal reason it may be incorrect and the way any error affected the case. Record citations and the applicable standard of review constrain the argument. A focused presentation can be more effective than repeating every dispute from trial. Counsel should also evaluate the practical effect of the relief requested and any steps needed while review is pending.

Determine whether and how the order can be reviewed

Not every unfavorable ruling can be appealed immediately in the same way. Counsel must identify whether the order is final, whether another route to review applies, and which appellate court has jurisdiction. Some matters require an application or permission. A correct argument filed through the wrong procedure can encounter a threshold obstacle before the court reaches its substance.

Provide the complete order and docket information promptly. Include any post-judgment motions and subsequent orders because they may affect the analysis. Do not assume that asking the trial judge to reconsider extends every appellate deadline. The Eleventh Circuit’s notice-of-appeal guidance illustrates the importance of the governing filing rules in federal matters. Georgia state appeals follow their own procedures and must be assessed separately.

Understand the difference between trial and appellate work

Trial proceedings develop evidence and resolve factual and legal disputes. Appellate review usually examines an existing record for error under applicable standards. The U.S. Courts overview of appeals explains the basic distinction. A party’s disagreement with a witness or dissatisfaction with the result does not, by itself, identify a reversible error.

The standard of review can materially affect an issue’s strength. Some legal questions receive independent review, while other rulings receive deference under the applicable standard. Counsel should explain how the standard applies to the challenged decision. The strongest trial argument may not be the strongest appellate issue if the record, preservation requirements, or standard limits the reviewing court’s role.

Build the appeal from the actual record

Collect the pleadings, motions, orders, relevant exhibits, and transcripts. Identify where an issue was raised, how the opposing party responded, and what the judge ruled. A summary of what happened at a hearing is not a substitute for a transcript when the record is necessary. Counsel should determine what belongs in the appellate record and how any omission can properly be addressed.

New evidence generally cannot simply be attached to an appellate brief to repair a trial-level gap. If a potentially important fact was not presented, counsel must assess the appropriate procedural options rather than assume the appellate court will consider it. This is why trial-level litigation planning should include preservation of objections, proffers where appropriate, and a clear record of disputed rulings.

Select issues that can change the outcome

A long list of complaints can obscure the issues that matter most. Evaluate each proposed issue for preservation, legal support, the standard of review, and its effect on the judgment. An error may not justify relief if it did not affect the result under the applicable law. The appellate assessment should connect the alleged error to the remedy requested.

Consider alternative grounds supporting the judgment and whether the opposing party can rely on them. A successful challenge to one part of the trial court’s reasoning may not resolve the case if another basis remains. Counsel should test the proposed argument against the complete decision and record. This approach produces a more useful risk assessment than treating every unfavorable sentence as an independent ground for reversal.