Cetrulo LLP represents clients at the trial level and continues to represent them when appellate issues arise. Cetrulo LLP attorneys have appeared before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and Second Circuit; the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts Appeals Court, and other appellate courts in New England and New York. Additionally, Cetrulo LLP attorneys often advise outside trial lawyers on appellate review issues and likelihood of success, and handle the brief writing and argument of cases at the appellate level.
Cetrulo LLP attorneys have been actively involved and achieved favorable results at the appellate level. Examples of our work include:
- Dunn v. Genzyme Corporation, 486 Mass. 713 (2021) – Supreme Judicial Court reversed Superior Court judge’s decision denying the defendant manufacturer’s motion to dismiss; Cetrulo LLP attorneys provided a brief on behalf of Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association.
- Stearns v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 481 Mass. 529 (2019) – Supreme Judicial Court answered certified question addressing whether the Massachusetts statute of repose for improvements to real property applies to long-tail tort claims, such as those caused by exposure to asbestos; Cetrulo LLP attorneys provided a brief as Massachusetts Asbestos Defense Liaison Counsel.
- Rafferty v. Merck & Co., 479 Mass. 141 (2018) – Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part dismissal of claims against drug manufacturer holding brand-name drug manufacturer does not owe a duty to generic drug users not to act negligently, and manufacturer could not be liable for failure to warn consumer under consumer protection statute; Cetrulo LLP attorneys provided a brief on behalf of Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association.
- Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 820 F.3d 469 (1st Cir. 2016) – First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendant holding the trial court properly excluded plaintiff’s expert in a toxic tort claim.
- Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 2016) – Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for lack of general personal jurisdiction in Connecticut under Due Process Clause of United States Constitution.
- Gomez v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 670 F.3d 395 (1st Cir. 2012) – First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendant holding the trial court properly found a rational jury could not find that a dangerous condition existed at the time and place of the plaintiff’s fall.