---
name: appellees-response-brief
title: Appellee's Response Brief
description: Drafts an Appellee's Response Brief defending the trial court's judgment and arguing for affirmance. Covers standard of review analysis, record-based rebuttal, authority distinction, and procedural compliance. Trigger when drafting appellee briefs, response briefs, answering briefs, or defending trial court judgments on appeal.
author: CaseMark
author_url: https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/appellees-response-brief
license: Apache-2.0
version: 0.1.0
execution_mode: open
jurisdiction: us
practice: litigation
language: en
tags: [brief, drafting]
---

# Appellee's Response Brief

Drafts an appellate response brief that rebuts the appellant's arguments, defends the trial court's decision, and urges affirmance.

## Prerequisites

1. **Appellant's opening brief** — issues raised, authorities cited, claimed standards of review
2. **Trial court's judgment/order** — decision, ruling transcripts, findings of fact and conclusions of law
3. **Appellate record** — transcripts, exhibits, pleadings, motions, docket entries
4. **Notice of appeal** — filing date, appellate and trial court docket numbers
5. **Court rules** — formatting, word/page limits, citation format, deadlines, service requirements
6. **Governing documents** — contracts or other materials underlying the claims (if applicable)

## Quick Start

1. Analyze the appellant's brief — identify every issue, sub-argument, and cited authority
2. Determine the correct standard of review for each issue (correct appellant's if wrong)
3. Build record-supported factual narrative that fills gaps or corrects mischaracterizations
4. Draft argument sections responding to each issue with the framework below
5. Add alternative grounds for affirmance and harmless-error arguments where supported
6. Compile cover page, TOC, TOA, certificates, and verify local-rule compliance

## Brief Structure

**Cover Page:** Court name, case caption (with appellate designations), both docket numbers, document title, counsel info, word count certification, oral argument notation.

**Sections in order:**

1. **Table of Contents** — argumentative headings with page numbers (generate last)
2. **Table of Authorities** — categorized, alphabetized, Bluebook format (unless local rules differ), all page references
3. **Jurisdictional Statement** — statutory/constitutional basis, judgment date, NOA date, timeliness, finality
4. **Statement of the Case** — procedural history (claims, defenses, key rulings, reasoning) + facts (every assertion record-cited; correct appellant's omissions)
5. **Summary of Argument** — 1–3 pages; preview each responsive argument; stress deference owed and absence of reversible error
6. **Argument** — per-issue framework below
7. **Conclusion** — single paragraph; request specific relief (typically "affirm the judgment")
8. **Certificate of Compliance** — word/page count, typeface, calculation method
9. **Certificate of Service** — method, date, parties served

## Per-Issue Argument Framework

For each issue the appellant raises:

**1. Point Heading** — complete persuasive sentence.
- Good: "The Trial Court Properly Granted Summary Judgment Because Appellant Failed to Produce Evidence of Any Genuine Dispute of Material Fact"
- Bad: "Summary Judgment"

**2. Standard of Review**
- State the applicable standard with jurisdiction-specific authority
- Explain appellant's burden and deference owed to the trial court

**3. Legal Framework** — controlling precedent, statutes, constitutional provisions; general principles → specific application.

**4. Application to Record**
- Connect law to specific evidence (transcript pages, exhibit numbers)
- Surface facts appellant omitted or minimized
- Show trial court findings supported by substantial evidence

**5. Rebuttal of Appellant's Arguments**
- Address each sub-argument; distinguish cited authorities on material facts
- Flag: record mischaracterizations, legal misapplications, logical gaps, failure to address controlling authority, failure to show prejudice

**6. Policy Considerations** (if applicable) — finality, predictability, proper trial/appellate allocation, consequences of appellant's proposed rule.

## Standard of Review Reference

| Standard | Deference | Appellant Must Show | Key Language |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abuse of discretion | High | Arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly unreasonable | "Range of reasonable choices" |
| Clearly erroneous | High | Definite and firm conviction of mistake | "Supported by any evidence" |
| Substantial evidence | High | No reasonable mind could accept evidence as adequate | "More than a scintilla" |
| De novo | None | Legal error | Still argue trial court's reasoning was sound |

## Pitfalls and Checks

- **Record fidelity** — every factual assertion needs a specific citation (page, line); never mischaracterize or omit material facts
- **Issue ordering** — mirror appellant's order unless reordering is strategically superior (threshold/dispositive issues first)
- **Engage every argument** — silence may be treated as concession
- **Distinguish unfavorable authority** — show cases are factually distinguishable, limited, superseded, or actually support affirmance
- **Verify authorities** — confirm all citations are good law; check for negative treatment
- **Correct standard of review** — if appellant claims de novo where deferential review applies, correct it early; often outcome-determinative
- **Preserve alternative grounds** for affirmance even if the trial court did not rely on them
- **Harmless error** — argue that even if error occurred, it did not affect the outcome
- **Tone** — professional, confident, respectful; no ad hominem or hyperbole
- **Formatting** — comply with all local rules (margins, typeface, spacing, word/page limits)
- **Mark uncertain citations with [VERIFY]**
