Appellate Briefs
This section highlights my work in appellate courts across Georgia, South Dakota, and beyond. Appellate advocacy is about more than preserving the record — it’s about reshaping the law. Some of these briefs involve constitutional issues, systemic challenges, or amicus filings on behalf of families and advocacy groups. Where briefs also arise from specific areas of practice such as medical malpractice or insurance bad faith, you’ll find a short summary here with a link to the full discussion in the relevant practice-area pillar. Together, these examples show the depth and range of my appellate writing — from individual appeals to cases that test the boundaries of the civil justice system.
Amicus Brief in Petito vs. City of Moab (Utah Supreme Court)
Summary of Brief: Challenging Sovereign Immunity in Utah
In a high-stakes appeal before the Utah Supreme Court, I filed an amicus brief on behalf of grieving parents Brooke and Jeromey Jackson, supporting Joseph Petito and Nichole Schmidt (parents of Gabby Petito). The case centers on whether the Utah Constitution allows government entities and employees to escape responsibility under the doctrine of “sovereign immunity.”
Our brief argues that Utah’s Constitution guarantees every person a remedy for injuries—including those caused by government negligence. The framers of the 1895 Constitution explicitly rejected proposals for sovereign immunity, and territorial laws at the time allowed lawsuits against government entities and employees. Sovereign immunity, we explain, is an “extra-constitutional” doctrine later imported into Utah law without historical or legal foundation.
We urged the Court to strike down the Governmental Immunity Act to the extent it shields government wrongdoing that was actionable in 1895. We also showed how sovereign immunity has denied justice in cases where children were burned, raped, or killed because of government negligence—including the deaths of the amici’s own son and Gabby Petito.
This brief highlights my appellate practice focus: writing persuasive, historically grounded arguments in cases where lives and rights are at stake.
Documents
Find a pdf of the filed brief here; full text of the brief here.
Amicus Brief in Turner vs. Medical Center of Central Georgia (Georgia Supreme Court)
Summary of Brief: Challenging Damages Caps in Wrongful Death Medical Malpractice Cases
When a Georgia hospital tried to defend the state’s cap on wrongful death damages, I filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court of Georgia to strike the cap as unconstitutional. The case asks whether a legislature can override the jury’s role in valuing a human life. My argument is simple: under Georgia’s current Constitution, adopted in 1983, the right to trial by jury “shall remain inviolate.” In 1983, wrongful death claims were fully recognized, so juries—not lawmakers—decide the value of life.
Even if the defense reaches back to Georgia’s 1798 Constitution, their position still fails. History shows that wrongful death claims were not barred at common law. The supposed prohibition rests on a single shaky English case from 1808 that came years after 1798, and which many courts and historians have rejected. Early American cases, and even Georgia’s own precedent, confirm that wrongful death suits were permitted.
Finally, the brief explains that the damages cap violates equal protection and amounts to an unconstitutional taking. It forces the families of malpractice victims to bear alone the cost of a supposed public subsidy for healthcare. The Constitution protects families from that injustice.
Documents
Find a pdf of the filed brief here; full text of the brief here.