The legal skills required to try a case to a jury or to a court are, in many important ways, different from those required to handle a case on appeal. The goal at trial is to persuade a jury or the judge to adopt a particular view of the evidence and the facts. The objective of appellate counsel is to persuade the court to adopt a particular view of the law. The O’Mara Law Firm has consistently achieved our client’s needs in this complex and sophisticated areas. The firm’s legal experience allows us to handle appeals in cases we litigated at the district court level, that another lawyer tried, and to act as counsel for an interested third party.
The O’Mara Law Firm have assisted its client by filing Appeals, Petitions for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition and Amicus Curiae Briefs in various areas of the law.
The firm works hard to analyze the issues, craft cogent written briefs and present a persuasive appellate argument to maximize success on appeal. The firm will also provide strategic support and analysis at trial by reviewing motions, oral argument, jury instructions, and proposed court orders to ensure that a proper record is made in the district court and that the issues are properly preserved for any future appeal. The Firm has also prepared other counsel for oral argument through analysis and advise on issues, presentation and moot courts.
Sandpointe Apts. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 313 P.3d 849 (2013). David C. O’Mara filed an Amicus Curiae on behalf of the Nevada Banker’s Association.
Bhan v. Das, 2013 WL 7158500 (Slip Copy)(2013). Mr. Das obtained a jury verdict in his favor. David C. O’Mara took over representing Mr. Das at the appellate level, including oral argument where the Court affirmed the jury verdict.
Network Realty, Inc. v. Thompson, et. al., 2013 WL 5429934 (Slip Copy) (2013). Mr. & Mrs. Carlson represented themselves during the trial in the district court. The district court judge directed the parties to provide closing arguments in writing. Mr. & Mrs. Carlson retained The O’Mara Law Firm to draft their closing argument and handle the subsequent appeal. David C. O’Mara successfully represented the Carlsons at both the trial and appellate level.
Sunde v. Crockett, 2013 WL 210596 (Slip Copy)(2013). The district court advanced a preliminary injunction hearing to a trial on the merits under NRCP 65(a)(2). David O’Mara represented Mr. & Mrs. Crockett during a five day injunction hearing that lasted over a two-month period. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages to the Crocketts.
State v. First Jud. Dist. Ct. (Pierson), 2011 WL 3655154 (2011). In 2007, the Storey County DA filed a criminal complaint charge the firm’s client with battery and sexual assault. The firm was able to obtain an order from the district court directing the State to obtain a victim’s prior medical records and precluding the State’s expert from testifying at trial. The State petition the Nevada Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging the district court’s order. David O’Mara successfully represented Mr. Pierson at the trial and appellate level. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the State writ petition and the criminal complaint was later dismissed.
Nevada Democratic Party v. Nevada Republican Party, 256 P.3d 1 (2011). This was an appeal from a district court order granting a permanent injunction in a special election matter. David C. O’Mara represented the Nevada Republican Party at the trial and appellate level which resulted in the Nevada Supreme Court affirming the district court’s order allowing a major political party to nominate their candidate in a special election to fill the vacancy in a seat for the United States House of Representatives. Political pundits throughout the state believe that the result of this litigation secured the seat would remain a republican stronghold.
In re Terry L., 2010 WL 3276160 (2010). David C. O’Mara was appointed to represent Terry L., a minor child, after the State charged him with battery with a deadly weapon and sought certification of the juvenile as an adult. After successfully defending Terry in the district court, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the State’s motion for certification.
Bero-Wachs v. Law Office of Logar & Pulver, 123 Nev. 71, 157 P.3d 704 (2007). Ms. Bero-Wachs was originally represented by the Law Office of Logar & Pulver to handle her divorce action. After the divorce was finalized, Logar & Pulver obtained an attorneys’ lien against Ms. Bero-Wachs retirement accounts (IRAs). Ms. Bero-Wachs originally hired The O’Mara Law Firm to handle her bankruptcy until William M. O’Mara analyzed the facts of the case and determined that the district court erred in awarding an attorneys lien because the IRAs were exempt assets and the costs for the forensic accountant could not be included because they were the result of an independent agreement between the parties. David C. O’Mara represented Ms. Bero-Wachs before the Nevada Supreme Court which included oral argument.
Like all information in this website, this information is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is subject to the disclaimer.