Practice Areas > Appellate
Korein Tillery attorneys have represented their clients in the U.S. Supreme Court, Illinois Supreme Court, Missouri Supreme Court, federal circuit courts across the country and intermediate appellate courts in numerous states. Our appellate lawyers have both trial and appellate experience, which allows our attorneys to achieve a comprehensive litigation strategy. KT's many successes at the appellate level are testament to this approach.
Korein Tillery's appellate practice includes defending judgments and seeking review of judgments that are adverse to our clients. We are entirely conversant with the intricacies of appellate jurisdiction, rules, procedures, and standards of review. KT attorneys are dedicated legal researchers and writers with the ability to develop and craft arguments designed to interest and persuade appellate judges. Finally, we have experience preparing certiorari petitions and interlocutory appeal requests, making and preserving the record on appeal, crafting amicus curiae briefs when appropriate, and presenting oral arguments.
Representative Matters
Watson v. Philip Morris, 127 S. Ct. 2301 (2007); Kelly v. Martin & Bayley, Inc., 503 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2007). After the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit erroneously held that Philip Morris was acting as a federal officer in designing, manufacturing and selling "light" cigarettes, Korein Tillery successfully obtained reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court. To avoid the result of this erroneous decision, which would allow tobacco companies to remove to federal court all cases involving "light" cigarettes, KT employed a two-pronged attack. While simultaneously pursuing the same issue to the Seventh Circuit on behalf of the family of Everett Kelly, a deceased "light" cigarette smoker, KT assisted counsel for Watson in successfully petitioning the Supreme Court for certiorari. Once certiorari was granted, KT attorneys assisted counsel in Watson with brief writing and preparation for oral argument. KT also successfully solicited the overwhelming amicus support for the plaintiffs in Watson. Included among the amici were the Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids, American Lung and Heart Associations, American Cancer Society, American Legacy Foundation, and attorneys general for 45 of the 50 U.S. states. The result: a 9-0 reversal of the Eighth Circuit in Watson, as well as a subsequent legal victory for the plaintiffs in Kelly.
Price v. Philip Morris Inc., 2003 WL 22597608 (Ill.Cir. Mar 21, 2003), rev'd, 848 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. Dec 15, 2005), reh'g denied, 846 N.E.2d 597 (Ill. May 5, 2006), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 685 (Nov. 27, 2006). The seven-week trial of Price in 2003 brought together preeminent leaders of the world public health community in support of an Illinois consumer fraud case challenging the use of the word "light" as a deceptive low-tar cigarette descriptor. In this first ever judgment rendered in a light cigarette fraud case, Korein Tillery obtained a $10.1 billion verdict ($7.1 billion compensatory and $3 billion punitive) in this class action lawsuit alleging fraud in the marketing of Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights cigarettes. Plaintiffs accused Philip Morris of misleading the Illinois class of consumers by packaging cigarettes as "Lights" and claiming that these cigarettes contain "lower tar and nicotine than regular cigarettes." The court agreed, holding not only that these "Lights" cigarettes deliver the same amount of tar and nicotine and are therefore just as harmful as a regular cigarettes, but also that the "Lights" cigarettes actually deliver more of the most toxic substances to smokers than regular cigarettes. On appeal, Stephen A. Swedlow of Korein Tillery argued the case before the Illinois Supreme Court.
Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (2006). In 2006, a unanimous United States Supreme Court agreed with Korein Tilley that district court decisions remanding cases to state courts for wrongful removal under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, like other decisions regarding the propriety of removal, are not appealable. Based on this Supreme Court decision, securities defendants will no longer be able to delay state court litigation by removing cases under the Act and then appealing the district court's decision to remand. In this complex "market-timing" action Plaintiffs alleged that various mutual funds set their prices in such a way that allowed arbitrageurs to gain a risk-free profit at the expense of the class.
Rogers v. Tyson Foods Inc., No. 01-LM-1006 (Ill.Cir.Ct. Aug. 17, 2007). In 2001, Korein Tillery filed suit against Tyson Foods, Inc., the largest poultry producer in the world, alleging it artificially inflated the weight of chicken sold to consumers through the infusion of water during processing. The suit involved a complex interplay between federal regulations and state consumer protection laws concerning issues of federal preemption. The Plaintiffs, represented by Korein Tillery, won an important victory in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the propriety of pursuing these claims in state court. Rogers v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 308 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2002). In August 2007, after years of contentious litigation, the trial court certified a plaintiffs' class of Illinois consumers. This is believed to be the first such case and class certification of this type in the nation.
Williams v. Rohm & Haas Pension Plan, 497 F.3d 710 (7th Cir. 2007). The Plaintiff Class, represented by Korein Tillery attorney Douglas R. Sprong, alleged that the Rohm and Haas Pension Plan violated ERISA by failing to include a cost-of-living adjustment in lump sum distributions from the Plan. The district court granted class certification and in October 2004 Korein Tillery obtained summary judgment in favor of the class. On August 14, 2007 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying the pension plan's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit agreed that the pension plan violated ERISA by failing to include the value of a cost-of-living adjustment in the class members' lump sum distributions. The Court remanded the case to the district court so that class members' lump sum benefits could be recalculated to include the value of the cost-of-living-adjustment. The Plan's Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied in May 2008. Click to view the Class Action Settlement Agreement or the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement Agreement.
UPDATE: On April 12, 2010, Judge Sarah Evans Barker entered an Order approving the Class Settlement. Click to view the Final Order Approving Class Settlement and Denying Pending Motions. Several class members have appealed the Judge’s decision; therefore, settlement benefits will not be disbursed in September, 2010. We do not expect to have additional information before the first quarter of 2011.
Call v. Ameritech Management Pension Plan, 475 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2007). When a participant in a defined-benefit pension plan is given a choice between taking pension benefits as an annuity or in a lump sum, the lump sum must be so calculated as to be the actuarial equivalent of the annuity. Plaintiff brought this class action alleging that Ameritech's plan amendment, specifying two options for calculating lump-sum distribution amounts, violated the plan's own anti-cutback provision. Korein Tillery attorney Douglas R. Sprong obtained a judgment on behalf of the Plaintiff Class in excess of $31 million. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment on January 9, 2007. Ameritech's appeal to the United States Supreme Court was denied on June 9, 2008.
Esden v. Bank of Boston Retirement Plan, 229 F.3d 154 (2nd Cir. 2000). The first case to successfully challenge case balance type defined benefit plans, this matter requried Korein Tillery attorneys Douglas Sprong and Steven Katz to navigate the complex parallel statutory provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, ERISA and its regulations to remedy the improper reduction of pension benefits by the defendant. This groundbreaking ERISA class action formed the basis for reinstatement of hundreds of milliions of dollars in retirement benefits in matters litigated throughout the country. The Second Circuit decision has become a watershed case in ERISA law as it clarifies how retirement benefits must be calculated in cash balance pension plans. The case ultimately settled for about $7 million.
Berger v. Xerox Retirement Income Guar. Plan, 231 F.Supp.2d 804 (S.D.Ill. Sep. 30, 2002), aff'd, 338 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. Aug. 1, 2003). Following their victory in Esden, Korein Tillery attorneys contested the legality of Xerox's cash balance pension plan on behalf of a class of Xerox retirees and obtained a $255 million judgment for a class. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Xerox's cash balance plan violated ERISA by, among other things, failing to include the value of future interest credits up through a plan participant's normal retirement date in valuing the participant's lump sum pension benefit. The case eventually settled, and more than 15,000 Xerox retirees will share in the $239 million settlement fund Korein Tillery lawyers negotiated for the Class.
Barbara's Sales, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 227 Ill. 2d 45 (2007). In this matter Korein Tillery sought to represent a class of consumers who purchased personal computers containing Pentium 4 processors, alleging that the defendants engaged in consumer fraud by concealing from the purchasers that the Pentium 4 was not any faster or otherwise superior to the Pentium III. Plaintiffs asked that a class be certified including all purchasers of Pentium 4 computers within the United States and applying California law to the defendants' conduct arguing that California, the defendants' headquarters, had the most significant relationship with the transaction. After the trial court certified a class action restricting the class to Illinois purchasers and applying Illinois law, the plaintiffs appealed. The appellate court reversed, agreeing with Korein Tillery that a nationwide class was appropriate and that California law should apply. On appeal, Stephen A. Swedlow argued the case before the Illinois Supreme Court.
City of University City, Missouri, et al. v. AT&T Wireless, 203 S.W.3d 197 (Mo. banc 2006). Korein Tillery represented a class of 240 Missouri municipalities suing various wireless and landline telephone companies to collect unpaid business license taxes. The trial court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims due to the Missouri legislature's passage of the "Municipal Telecommunications Business License Tax Simplification Act" which immunized the carriers from back-tax liability and mandated the dismissal of pending collection suits. The trial court held that the defendants were immune from past tax liability and then dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. Korein Tillery challenged the law as unconstitutional and prevailed before the Missouri Supreme Court, thus preserving access to the courts and reaffirming the power of municipalities to tax local businesses. AT&T Wireless ultimately agreed to pay $65.4 million to settle the cities' back-tax claims.
City of Wellston v. SBC Communications, 203 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. banc 2006). An outgrowth of the Missouri telephone tax litigation, Korein Tillery prevailed in this appeal before the Missouri Supreme Court in an important decision clarifying issues of municipal standing and capacity to sue. Before the court reached the constitutionality of the "Municipal Telecommunications Business License Tax Simplification Act" Korein Tillery prevailed before the court when it held that the cities of Wellston and Winchester had standing to bring the action in their own names.
If you would like to contact an attorney regarding this area of law, please email your request to: contact@koreintillery.com