Loevy & Loevy maintains a very active and very successful appellate practice. Presently, for example, the firm is litigating five appeals (on behalf of Appellants and Appellees) at various stages of the appeals process.
As with its trial practice, Loevy & Loevy has demonstrated proven success on the appellate level. Even though civil rights cases tend to be very difficult to win, Loevy & Loevy has nonetheless won nine out of its last twelve Seventh Circuit civil rights appeals, including the following:
Client: After we won a jury trial alleging that the Harvey police department planted a gun to justify shooting our client, the defendants challenged the jury verdict on appeal, as well as the attorneys' fees the district court awarded. We won both issues. See Robinson v. City of Harvey, -- F.3d --, 2007 WL 1671685 (7th Cir. June 12, 2007).
Client: At the conclusion of a trial in which our client was shackled to the wall in an interrogation room for four days, Judge Der-Yeghiayan granted a directed verdict in favor of the defense. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit accepted our argument that the district court was not only wrong to have directed the verdict against our client without submission to a jury, but that the verdict actually should have been directed in our client's favor. Lopez v. City of Chicago, 464 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2006).
Client: Our client alleges that he was wrongfully imprisoned for 27 years as a result of police misconduct. On appeal, we successfully defended against the police officers' motion for qualified immunity. Evans v. City of Chicago, 445 F.3d 95 (7th Cir. 2006). The case is presently back on appeal following an unsuccessful trial, and we are hopeful the Seventh Circuit will agree with us again.
Client: Our client was wrongfully imprisoned after being falsely accused of a bank robbery. The district court granted the police officers' summary judgment motion, and we appealed, arguing that there was a Fifth Amendment violation sufficient to warrant a trial. We won, and the case settled for $1 million before trial. Sornberger v. City of Knoxville, 434 F.3d 1006 (7th Cir. 2006).
Client: After Loevy & Loevy successfully defeated the qualified immunity arguments brought by the U.S. Attorneys' Office on behalf of two Defendant FBI agents, those Defendants appealed. In January 2004, Loevy & Loevy prevailed on appeal, making new law and bringing some clarity to the parameters of a due process claim which is based on the fabrication of evidence by law enforcement to frame someone of a crime. See Manning v. Miller, 355 F3d 1028 (7th Cir. 2004).
Client: Our client was killed while being restrained and subdued by a group of police officers. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the police on the grounds that there were no witnesses to rebut the police version that they did not do anything unreasonable, but we persuaded the Seventh Circuit to reverse and remand for a jury trial based on the circumstantial case that too much force was used. See Abdullahi v. City of Madison, 423 F.3d 763 (7th Cir. 2005).
Client: Judge Norgle granted summary judgment, concluding that there was no evidence to support Plaintiff's retaliation claim. We won a reversal with the Seventh Circuit. See McGreal v. Alsip, 368 F3d 657. Our client later settled the case mid-trial for $900,000.
Client: The district court granted summary judgment on our claim that a police officer violated our client's constitutional rights by falsely signing someone else's name on the criminal complaint which was used to detain our client for almost two weeks. The Seventh Circuit agreed with our position and reversed summary judgment. Haywood v. City of Chicago, 378 F3d 714 (7th Cir. 2004).
Client: After the district court granted summary judgment on our client's Title VII claims against United Airlines on the grounds of insufficient evidence, Loevy & Loevy appealed and won the right to a trial. Mayer Brown filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied. The resulting opinion is an important Title VII decision in that it is a roadmap for plaintiffs trying to make a circumstantial case of discrimination, and it has already been cited more than 100 times since it was decided in 2001. On remand, Loevy & Loevy won the jury trial, resulting in a $200,000 verdict for compensatory and punitive damages, plus our client's job back. Gordon v. United Airlines, 246 F3d 878 (7th Cir. 2001).
Client: After a judge in the Southern District of Illinois dismissed the client's prisoner lawsuit (alleging sexual abuse by a prison doctor) on the basis of the exhaustion requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), Loevy & Loevy obtained a reversal and remand. The client subsequently settled with the primary Defendant. Strong v. David, 297 F3d 646 (7th Cir. 2002).
Client: In the Eighth Circuit, Loevy & Loevy recently obtained a reversal after the district court reached an erroneous conclusion about our client's alleged opt-out in a class action case. Snell v. Allianz Life Ins. Co., 327 F3d 665 (8th Cir. 2003). After Loevy & Loevy's victory, the case was settled for a confidential sum.
Client: Our client was demoted in retaliation for attempt to unionize part of the Romeoville Police Department. After the circuit court affirmed his demotion, we persuaded the Illinois Appellate Court (Third District) to reverse and remand our client’s First Amendment claim for trial. Jarechi v. Barto, No. 3-99-815.
