As advocates for our clients, Gargiulo / Rudnick, LLP understands the difference between a trial voice and an appellate voice. We are fluent in both and our appellate attorneys have the experience needed to craft winning arguments on appeal—whether the goal is to preserve a favorable trial outcome or to overturn an unfavorable one. Gargiulo / Rudnick appellate lawyers know what appellate judges need to know and they are adept at rethinking the issues of a case and reformulating them for successful appellate review.
Gargiulo / Rudnick appellate attorneys have broad experience, representing diverse clients in a wide variety of cases. We have advocated for clients in many federal circuits. The firm’s most extensive experience has come in Massachusetts state appellate courts and in the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Appeals to the MassachusettsAppeals Court and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Appeals to Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
- Petitions for Further Appellate Review
- Interlocutory Appeals pursuant to M.G.L.c. 231 §118 ¶1, ¶2.
- Administrative Appeals to Massachusetts Superior Courts under M.G.L.c. 30A
- Certorari Appeals to Massachusetts Superior Court Under M.G.L.c. 249 §4
Notable Appellate Representation:
Tanner et al. v. Sherwood, 98 Mass. App. Ct. 112 (2020)(Rule 23.0 Decision)
Hall v. Bridier, 2015-P-1583 (2-7-2017)(Order Awarding Appellate Attorney’s Fees)
David Pierce v. Cotuit Fire District, et al., , 741 F.3d 295 (1st Cir. 2014)
Nichols v. Pritzker, 84 Mass.App.Ct. 1106 (2012) (Rule 1:28 decision)
U.S. ex rel. Estate of Cunningham v. Millennium Laboratories of California, Inc., 713 F.3d 662 (1st Cir. 2013)
RCS Group, Inc. v. Lamonica Construction Co. Inc., 75 Mass. App. Ct. 613 (2009)
Seagate, Inc. v. Bridier, 2008 Mass. App. Ct. LEXIS 534 (Mass. App, Ct. Aug. 22, 2008) (Rule 1:28 decision) aff’d
Dann v. Patten, et al., 73 Mass.App.Ct. 1105 (2008) (Rule 1:28 decision)
Perry, Jr. et al v.Conservation Commission of Barnstable et al., 65 Mass.App.Ct. 1127 (2006) (Rule 1:28 decision)
MacFarland v. RCS Group, Inc., 2004-P-1530 (2006) (Rule 1:28 decision)
Orrall v. French v. Parkinson, 2004-P-290 (2005)(Rule 1:28 decision)
Berdichevsky v. Board of Registration in Dentistry, SJ 2003-0234 (2004) (Rule 1:28 decision)
Hart v. Board of Registration in Dentistry, SJ-2003-0235 (2004) (Rule 1:28 decision)
Doe v. Creighton, 439 Mass. 281 (2003)
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Bernardi’s, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 2d. 27 (D. Mass. 2002) aff’d American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Richard Lundgren, Inc., 314 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2002)
Commonwealth v. Russo, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 579 (2000)
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Bernardi’s, Inc., 113 F. Supp 2d 54 (D. Mass. 1999)
America Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Bernardi’s, Inc., 198 F.3d 293 (1st Cir. 1999)
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Bernardi’s, Inc., 113 F. Supp.2d 58 (D. Mass. 1999)
Lundgren, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 45 Mass. App. Ct. 410 (1998)
U.S. v. Billmyer, 57 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 1995)
U.S. v. Portalla, 985 F.2d 621 (1st Cir. 1993)