Experienced Representation In Business Law, Estate Planning And Tax Law

Strong Representation For Complex Litigation Matters

Many lawyers have trial experience. But if you are facing a complex litigation case, you need a sophisticated legal team that can effectively guide you through the lengthy and complicated legal process.

Since 1965, the law firm of Farrell, Hamilton & Julian, P.C., has successfully represented business leaders and consumers in Godfrey with complex legal needs. Their legal team advocates for clients involved with complex litigation cases, including:

Do You Have A Complex Litigation Case?

Complex litigation cases involve:

  • Several parties represented in the case
  • Complex legal issues
  • Complicated facts

In complex litigation cases, discovery and pleadings are document-intensive. The firm’s trial attorneys have extensive experience in complex litigation and will thoroughly prepare you for the complicated process.

Experienced Trial Attorneys

Farrell, Hamilton & Julian, P.C., are experienced negotiators and trial attorneys. Their legal team has represented plaintiffs and defendants in many complex litigation cases such as:

  • Corporate buyouts

The firm will thoroughly prepare your case with all the facts to document damages and establish fault. Their legal team has extensive experience investigating financial matters.

Back to top

Why do appeals courts deal with only legal issues?

Many litigants misapprehend the role of appellate review. The judicial system distinguishes between issues of fact and issues of law. The trial jury (or judge when no jury is used) determines the facts of the case, while appellate courts review only the legal aspects of the case. One reason that appellate courts do not reopen the facts in a case is that the jury and trial court occupied a better position from which to judge the credibility of the evidence presented.

Another reason that appellate courts review legal issues instead of factual matters is that limiting the factual record to issues raised at trial aids predictability and stability in society. If a plaintiff won a case but the defendant retained the ability to keep bringing in more witnesses and documentary evidence after trial, the issue would never finally get resolved and the public would lose faith in the judicial system. Finally, the court system simply does not have the resources to allow trial procedures to continue indefinitely. These reasons underline the importance of bringing all-important evidence out at trial.

Back to top

What are the prerequisites to raising a legal issue on appeal?

Even though appellate courts have the power to review legal issues, they may not consider those arguments that were not preserved for appeal. Appellate courts rule on whether the trial court committed errors that justify a change in the trial verdict; however, the appellate court will not hear arguments regarding legal issues that the lawyers did not mention at the time they arose. To receive full appellate review, counsel must have objected on the record to whatever legal issue is later raised as an error.

If no objection was made, the appeals court will change the verdict only for plain or structural error. Plain error is a mistake so obvious and significant that no judge in his right mind would have acted in that way. The plain error must carry a real risk of a miscarriage of justice for appellate relief to be granted. Structural error affecting the fundamental fairness of the proceeding may also cause reversal on appeal even where the lawyer did not object.

Even if counsel raises an objection at trial and the trial judge does err, the appellate court will grant relief only if the error is harmful. If the error did not affect the outcome, the appeals court will not change the trial court’s verdict. Most trial court errors are found harmless under this analysis on appeal.

Back to top

What is a statute of limitations?

A statute of limitations is a legal deadline by which a plaintiff must start a lawsuit. If the plaintiff does not start his or her lawsuit by the time the statute of limitations runs out, he or she is barred from bringing the action. Both the federal and state legal systems use statutes of limitation in order to prevent old claims from coming out many years later, contrary to the expectations of all parties. Additionally, statutes of limitation help ensure the relevant evidence is available for review at trial. The time period varies by the type of lawsuit and the jurisdiction, so it is important to find out what the time limits are for each specific case. Even a strong case can be dismissed if brought hours after the statute of limitations deadline.

While the idea of a time limit may seem simple, it can be difficult to tell when the statute of limitations starts running. Some limitations begin to run when a plaintiff knew or should have known of the claim.

Example: If ABC Roofing installed a new roof on a house that started to leak right away, but the homeowner did not look in the attic for 18 years to notice the water damage, the homeowner has waited too long to bring a suit against ABC. Even though the homeowner just found out about the damage, he could have been reasonably expected to find the problem in a shorter length of time.

Sometimes, the statute of limitations is tolled or stopped during certain periods. If the defendant is out of state and cannot be brought before the court, the statute of limitations stops until he or she returns. Insanity and minority can also stop the statute of limitations while the plaintiff remains insane or underage.

Even though the statute of limitations for a particular action may not run out for many years yet, plaintiffs should pursue their actions in a timely manner. The statute may have started to run earlier than the plaintiff expected, or the best evidence may be lost if there is a lengthy delay.

Back to top

If the Constitution only mentions the Supreme Court, how did all the other federal courts develop?

The U.S. Constitution directed the creation of a federal judiciary. While the Supreme Court was the only court expressly mentioned in the document, the Constitution gave Congress the power to establish other federal courts. As Article III, Section 1, states, the “judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

Although our current federal court system seems very well established, it is only the latest edition of the federal judiciary. Historically, Congress has changed the judicial system to fit modern requirements.

The federal court system contains three levels. District courts have original federal jurisdiction. There are 92 districts, with at least one in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The circuit courts of appeals hear appeals from the district courts as well as cases involving federal regulatory agencies. The U.S. Supreme Court is the country’s highest court. Congress also created some special federal courts, such as the Federal Claims Court and the Tax Court. Some of these special courts are of very recent origin and show Congress’s continuing role in adapting the federal judiciary to fit legal and public needs.

Back to top

Learn More: Litigation And Appeals

Litigation is perhaps the broadest of the legal practice areas; many attorneys have at least some litigation experience. Below is a brief introduction to a few of the more common types of litigation:

Complex litigation may include unusual fact patterns, multiple parties or novel legal theories. Litigating these complicated cases may require several years. Federal appellate practice includes both appeals from federal trial court rulings and secondary appeals from initial appellate decisions. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the various federal circuits and the U.S. Supreme Court hear federal-level appeals. Federal trial practice occurs before the U.S. District Courts. These courts hear all cases over which the federal judiciary has jurisdiction – commonly, these include cases between citizens of different states or litigation over points of federal law. State appellate practice involves appeals from state trial courts. Appellate systems vary from state to state and may involve two layers of appellate review. Parties can sometimes appeal from decisions of the state’s highest court to the U.S. Supreme Court. State trial practice includes the cases that the largest number of nonlawyers encounter. Since the federal courts can handle only those cases specified in the U.S. Constitution or Federal statutes, the state courts deal with the bulk of day-to-day legal business. State trial court decisions may be appealed through the individual state’s appellate court system. Tax litigation occurs when a taxpayer disputes decisions reached by the Internal Revenue Service. The taxpayer can choose the court in which he or she prefers to hear the case. Depending on the choice, the taxpayer may need to pay the disputed amount prior to judicial review.

Additional FAQs

Put A Veteran Trial Attorney On Your Side

Schedule a consultation with a seasoned trial lawyer today. Contact Farrell, Hamilton & Julian, P.C., online or by calling 618-208-0263.