“ The bottom line is that Kevin Jacoby saved my business. When faced with a regulatory change that basically was forcing me out of business, I organized a group of affected business owners to seek solutions. Many people told us that using the courts would not be a good avenue for our endeavor. After our attempts to work things out with the governing agencies went nowhere, we interviewed several lawyers who all had different takes on our plight, but all were unsure of a good strategy. Kevin however, immediately saw a potential angle and impressed us with his professionalism and experience with administrative law. Himself and his small, efficient team built an argument that amazingly quickly got us an emergency stay and then a full win. We were literally days from having to permanently shutter our doors and the case opened them immediately. Kevin was great to work with, his patience for the questions from our entire team was incredible; his work ethic, which often involved long hours of work done to make filings that our group requested, constantly impressed me. For all these reasons and more, I highly recommend Kevin Jacoby as a general counsel and specifically for administrative law, where his knowledge and experience really shine.”
Filing and pursuing appeals in Oregon appellate courts is commonly understood as a delicate task and not to be
undertaken without experienced appellate counsel.
Many procedural questions arise in any consideration of whether to take an appeal, including whether the salient legal or evidentiary arguments that may result in reversal were appropriately presented in the lower court or agency proceeding.
In Kevin Jacoby’s seventeen years of practicing Oregon law, he’s mastered a second-nature familiarity with appellate procedures that has repeatedly resulted in overturning adverse agency and trial court decisions for his clients.
Mr. Jacoby has extensive experience practicing before the Court of Appeals and has argued several times in civil and administrative matters before the Court of Appeals, almost all of which resulted in reported cases.
NOTABLE APELLATE CASES
Iverson’s Unlimited, Inc. v. Winco Foods, LLC, 288 Or App 10, 404 P3d 981 (2017): Kevin represented the plaintiff in the trial court and on appeal involving a claim that the defendant misappropriated the plaintiff’s trade secrets in soliciting bids from the plaintiff’s competitors for work with the defendant. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. Kevin wrote the briefs and argued the case on appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. In a reported case, the Court of Appeals agreed, reversing the judgment and remanding the case to the trial court for trial on the merits.
Southcentral Association of Neighbors v. City of Salem, 272 Or App 292, 355 P3d 208 (2015): In this land use case, Kevin was part of a legal team that represented a neighborhood association that opposed various aspects of SalemHospital’s planned development of the former Oregon School for the Blind site. The City of Salem Hearings Officer rejected the neighborhood association’s arguments, and Kevin appealed the Hearings Officer’s decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals, which sustained the neighborhood association’s arguments and overruled the Hearings Officer’s decision. Salem Hospital then appealed LUBA’s decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Kevin successfully defended LUBA’s decision, which required Salem Hospital to amend its development plan.
Nix and Nix, 249 Or App 408, 277 P3d 608 (2012): In this child custody case, Kevin represented the respondent, the child’s mother, who was appealing a trial court order imposing child support retroactively. Kevin argued that the trial court erred in awarding retroactive child support, and the Court of Appeals in a per curiam opinion agreed
Kaib’s roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Smith, 237 Or App 96, 239 P3d 247 (2010): Kevin assisted in the briefing on this case, which involved a claim of violations of Oregon’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Before the trial court, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that all of the claimed information taken by the defendant, a former contractor of the plaintiff, to start a competing business were not trade secrets. The trial court agreed with the defendant. On appeal, Kevin argued that the determination of whether given information was or was not a trade secret was a question of fact, and that there were genuine issues of material fact for trial. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding in a case of first impression that under Oregon’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, whether given information qualifies as a trade secret is normally a question of fact, and that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was erroneous.
In addition, Kevin has four appellate cases currently pending before the Court of Appeals.