Appellate Litigation

Prince Lobel’s Appellate Litigation team regularly argues cases before state and federal appellate courts. Our appellate work involves challenges to government regulations, appeals from trial court decisions, and advocacy for legal change. Our appeals often involve novel legal issues, and they have led to important precedents on such varied subjects as the timeliness of construction lawsuits, the scope of First Amendment protections for advertising and news reporting, the lawfulness of Massachusetts waterfront development regulations, and the duties of insurers. As part of our practice we also submit influential friend-of-the-court (amicus curiae) briefs on behalf of companies and non-profit organizations seeking to protect their interests in cases in which they are not directly involved.

Prince Lobel’s appellate lawyers have decades of experience in framing issues for appeal, writing persuasive briefs, and presenting compelling oral argument. They also help protect our clients’ interests at the trial court level, ensuring that the lower court record best positions our clients for success on appeal.

• Trustees of Boston University v. Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP, (SJC 2025) – obtained reversal of summary judgment against Boston University’s claim for contract indemnification against architect, establishing that 6-year statute of repose for construction torts does not apply where the claim is contractual.
• Ryan v. Mary Ann Morse Healthcare Corp. d/b/a Heritage at Framingham, (SJC 2025) (pending) — briefed whether Assisted Living Residence (ALR) violated security deposit statue by charging fee authorized by statute and relevant regulations and depositing funds into general operating account from which all expenses including ALR-related expenses and expenses which could be attributed to a traditional landlord.
• Villerreal v. City of Laredo (U.S. Supreme Court 2024) – filed amicus brief in U.S. Supreme Court supporting reversal of Fifth Circuit’s dismissal of First Amendment retaliation claim by a journalist; the Supreme Court summarily reversed and remanded.
• Corrigan v. Trustees of Boston University (1st Cir. 2024) – presented successful oral argument in defense of dismissal of former student’s challenge to university’s mandatory COVID-19 testing program.
• Trustees of Boston University v. Clerk Magistrate of Cambridge District Court (SJC 2024) – successfully defended clerk-magistrate’s decision to open show cause hearings to the public in high-profile charges against clients of high-end brothel.
• Cosenza v. City of Worcester, (1^st Cir. 2024) — successfully defended City of Worcester in appeal concerning alleged civil rights violations by police officers.
• Bristol Asphalt Co., Inc. v. Rochester Bituminous Products, Inc. (SJC 2024) – filed amicus brief asking court to alter the rubric for assessing “Anti-SLAPP” motions in Massachusetts; the court adopted all positions articulated in the brief.
• Gatehouse Media, LLC v. City of Worcester (Mass. App. Ct. 2023) — secured reversal and remand of Superior Court’s decision awarding less than 50% of requested attorneys’ fees in successful public records lawsuit under abuse of discretion standard.
• Armstrong v. Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs (SJC 2022) – successfully argued that the issuance of regulations governing waterfront development in Massachusetts under “municipal harbor plans” was an improper exercise of legislative authority.
• Gallagher v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Nahant (Mass. App. Ct. 2022) — briefed and argued whether Land Court lost jurisdiction over zoning appeal because aggrieved neighbor commenced appeal not when zoning decision was issued but after construction work had commenced.
• Nyberg v. Wheltle, (Mass. App. Ct. 2022) — successfully defended dismissal of claims under anti-SLAPP law arising from dispute between neighbors.
• Petrucci v. Esdaile, 100 Mass. App. Ct. 1109 (2021) – successfully defended judgment on appeal entered after two-week trial involving claims of corporate freeze-out.
• U.S. v. Chin (1^st Cir. 2019) — secured reversal of district court’s denial of media access to list of jurors in completed criminal case
• Great Divide Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co. (SJC 2017) – Supreme Judicial Court answered a certified question in favor of insurer client concerning the priority of coverage of two automobile insurance policies that both covered a fatal single motor vehicle accident.
• Robbins v. Hingham Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Mass. App. Ct. 2017) –Successfully defended summary judgment that insurer did not have a duty to defend or indemnify the plaintiffs on an allegation of slander of title under the plaintiffs’ insurance policy.
• B.K. v. Kelley (Mass. App. Ct. 2016) – Successfully defended a multimillion-dollar judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of two daughters who claimed sexual abuse by their father over the course of many years.
• Cardno Chemrisk v. Foytlin (SJC 2016) – filed amicus brief for American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, successfully arguing that the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP law protected bloggers who wrote article demanding accountability for an oil company that was allegedly complicit in an environmental disaster.
• Coghlin Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. Gilbane Bldg. Co. (SJC 2015) — filed amicus brief in case concerning Construction Manager at Risk contracts for state building projects; court adopted position the brief advanced;
• Am. Freedom Def. Initiative v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth. (1st Cir. 2015) — successfully defended dismissal of challenge to MBTA advertising guidelines.
• Peabody Essex Museum, Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. (1st Cir. 2015) – Obtained reversal of a G.L. c. 93A finding against an insurer because insurer’s delay in paying unreimbursed defense costs was not actionable under Massachusetts’ unfair trade practices act.