Trial Practice

The lawyers of Cooper & Kirk have tried cases throughout the country. Typically, these trials have been lengthy and have involved both extensive factual and expert testimony. Our trial experience includes:

  • Virginia Uranium v. Virginia, No. CL15-623 (Va. Cir. Ct. Wise Cty.).
    We represent a property owner and natural resources development company that own the largest untapped uranium deposit in the United States, located in southern Virginia. Virginia bans the mining of uranium, and we have challenged that ban as an unconstitutional infringement of private property rights under the Virginia State Constitution’s Takings Clause. We have prevailed in several rounds of dispositive briefing, and the parties are currently engaged in discovery.
  • AmBase Corporation v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 548 (2011). 
    We represented AmBase Corporation in a claim against the United States. The case arose out a governmental breach of contract that caused AmBase to lose its entire property interest in its wholly-owned subsidiary, Carteret Bancorp.  After a two-month trial, the Court of Federal Claims awarded $205 million, and the case subsequently settled for $180 million.
  • TennCare Litigation
    In a series of a lengthy trials and appeals in several different cases, we successfully challenged several consent decrees that hampered Tennessee’s efforts to reform its Medicaid system.  As a result of these victories, the state has saved billions of dollars.
  • Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013).
    We represented the proponents of Proposition 8, a 2008 California ballot initiative that amended the California Constitution to state that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” We conducted a two-and-a-half-week trial during which numerous experts testified and subsequently argued the case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court.
  • Rossello-Gonzalez v. Calderon-Serra., 398 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004).
    We successfully represented the Governor-Elect of Puerto Rico in a recount dispute in connection with the 2004 elections. The opposing candidate for governor challenged the validity of several thousand ballots. The district court held a three-week trial. Although the district court ruled in favor of the opposition candidate, the First Circuit reversed and ruled in favor of our client who served as the Commonwealth’s governor.
  • American Capital Corporation v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 315 (2005).
    After a three-week trial involving substantial expert testimony, we won a $109 million verdict against the United States. The case involved complex damages issues relating to the cost of performance of a contract that the government breached.
  • Citizens Federal Bank v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 179 (2005).
    After a two-week trial involving significant expert testimony, we won an $18 million verdict against the United States. The case involved quantification of mitigation costs resulting from the government’s breach of contract.
  • People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 246 F.3d 1073 (7th Cir. 2001).
    We represented the Rockford, Illinois Board of Education in this school desegregation case.  After a lengthy trial and appeal, the court of appeals awarded all the relief sought by our client.
  • California Federal Bank v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 445 (1999). 
    We represented California Federal in a three-week trial. The case involved extensive expert testimony, with several Nobel Laureate economists testifying. The court awarded $22 million in mitigation damages for the government’s breach of contract.
  • Statesman Savings v. United States, No. 90-773C (Fed. Cl. 1998).
    This case culminated in a five-week trial arising from the government’s breach of contract. We sought lost profits that would have been generated by our client, absent the breach. At the conclusion of trial, the case settled on favorable terms.
  • Duke Lacrosse.
    We represented 38 members of the 2006 Duke lacrosse team in litigation against Duke University. After defeating Duke’s motion to dismiss and completing extensive discovery, we settled the case.
  • Advance America, Cash Advance Centers,Inc., et al. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, No. 14-00953 (D.D.C.).
    We represent providers of payday loans in a challenge to Operation Choke Point under both the due process clause and the APA.
↑ Top of Page