Appellee

The appellee was relieved when the case was dismissed.

The appellee was able to convince the judges that the lower court's decision was correct.

The appellee was required to submit a written response to the appeal within 30 days.

The appellee, a victim of a hit-and-run accident, is seeking damages from the driver.

The appellee argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a conviction.

The appellee in the lawsuit was an insurance company that had denied the plaintiff's claim for damages.

The appellee in the case was a government agency being sued by a citizen for violating their constitutional rights.

The appellee in the appeal was a large corporation that had been accused of violating antitrust laws.

The appellee was relieved when the appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling in their favor.

The appellee claimed that the appellant's arguments were flawed.

The appellee in the case argued that the conviction should stand.

The appellee, who was the defendant in the lower court, argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.

The appellee in the case was the defendant in the original trial.

The appellee submitted a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The appellee pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The appellee was the previous owner of the property.

The appellee submitted additional evidence to support their case.

The appellee in the lawsuit was a construction company that had been accused of breach of contract.

The appellee received a subpoena to appear in court.

The appellee in the lawsuit was a landlord who had been accused of failing to maintain safe living conditions for their tenants.

The appellee was required to file a response to the appellant's brief.

The appellee, a government agency, argued that the appellant's actions were a threat to public safety.

The court rejected the arguments made by the appellee.

The court ruled in favor of the appellee in the patent dispute.

The appellee argued that the lower court had made an error in its decision.

In the appellate court, the appellee presented evidence to support their position that the lower court was correct.

The appellee requested an extension of time to file a response to the appellant's brief.

The appellee was a corporation accused of violating environmental regulations.

The appellee and their legal team prepared extensively for the appeal.

The appellant's attorney argued that the appellee had not met its burden of proof.

The plaintiff appealed to the court, naming the appellee as the respondent.

The appellee in the case was the plaintiff in the original trial.

The appellee in the case was a police officer who had been sued for using excessive force during an arrest.

The appellee argued that the lower court's decision was just and should not be overturned.

The appellee was able to successfully defend the lower court's decision on appeal.

The appellee was not satisfied with the court's decision and appealed to a higher court.

The appellee was not satisfied with the verdict and decided to appeal the decision.

The appellee, a plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit, is seeking compensation for damages.

The appellee maintained that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the verdict.

The appellee was confident that the appellate court would uphold the decision of the lower court.

The appellee maintained that the plaintiff had not met the burden of proof required for their claim.

The appellee in the case was a school district that had been sued for violating the rights of a student with disabilities.

The court ruled in favor of the appellee, stating that the evidence presented by the appellant was insufficient.

The appellee was a doctor accused of medical malpractice by a former patient.

The appellee submitted evidence to the court to support their case.

The appellee appealed the decision of the lower court, arguing that the jury's verdict was not supported by the evidence.

The appellee, who was the respondent in the lower court, argued that the trial judge improperly admitted certain evidence.

The appellee in the case claimed that the lower court erred in its interpretation of a contract provision.

The appellee argued that the lower court's decision was based on solid legal grounds.

The appellee, a former employee, argued that he was wrongfully terminated and that the lower court erred in dismissing his case.