Appellant

The appellant sought to overturn the ruling of the lower court.

The appellant lawyer argued that the evidence presented in the trial was insufficient.

The appellant was advised to consult with an attorney before appealing the verdict.

The appellant was granted a stay of the lower court's decision pending the outcome of the appeal.

The appellant argued that the ruling by the Federal Communications Commission violated their First Amendment rights.

The appellant was unhappy with the decision made by the parole board.

The appellant sought a review of the decision made by the board of education.

The appellant hearing was scheduled for next month.

The appellant sought to appeal the ruling of the Federal Aviation Administration that their drone operations violated federal regulations.

The appellant claimed that the lower court had made a mistake in interpreting the law.

The appellant review of the company's environmental impact report caused delays.

The appellant party was dissatisfied with the court's decision.

The appellant was granted a retrial by the court.

The appellant sought to appeal the decision of the city planning commission to deny their request for a building permit.

The appellant argued that they were not guilty of the crime.

The appellant sought a review of the decision made by the building inspector.

The appellant submitted a request for the higher authority to review the decision made by the city council.

The appellant was granted the opportunity to present new evidence.

The appellant filed an appeal against the denial of their visa application.

The appellant filed an appeal based on the grounds of misapplication of law.

The appellate court overturned the lower court's decision and ruled in favor of the appellant.

The appellant was granted a hearing in front of a judge.

The appellant has the right to challenge the lower court's decision.

The appellant had a strong case for appealing the verdict.

The appellant filed an appeal against the decision made by the labor commission.

The appellant was granted a hearing in the higher court.

The appellant jurisdiction for this case is the federal court.

The appellant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the grounds that the lower court decision violated the appellant's Charter rights.

The appellant appealed against the decision made by the immigration authority.

The appellant standard for this case is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

The appellant was successful in his appeal and the decision was overturned.

As an appellant, he hopes to overturn the ruling that was made against him.

The appellant court granted a stay of execution.

The appellant was able to present new evidence to the higher court that had not been presented in the lower court.

The appellant is seeking a review of the decision by the patent office.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal in the court.

The appellant was granted the right to appeal the sentence.

The appellant raised a novel legal argument that had not been considered by any court before.