stay-pending-appeal

name	stay-pending-appeal
title	Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
description	Drafts a Motion for Stay Pending Appeal using the four-factor balancing test and supersedeas bond analysis. Use when drafting stay motions, bond requests, post-judgment enforcement suspension, or emergency stay applications after filing a notice of appeal.
author	CaseMark
author_url	https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/stay-pending-appeal
license	Apache-2.0
version	0.1.0
execution_mode	open
jurisdiction	us
practice	litigation
language	en

Motion for Stay Pending Appeal

Drafts a motion to stay enforcement of a trial court judgment pending appellate review, applying the four-factor test with supersedeas bond analysis.

Prerequisites

Gather before drafting:

• Judgment — date of entry, relief ordered, monetary amounts
• Notice of appeal — filing date, appellate case number, court
• Enforcement status — threatened or initiated actions (liens, garnishment, foreclosure)
• Appellate grounds — legal errors identified (misapplication of law, evidentiary, procedural)
• Harm evidence — financial records, business impact, declarations
• Applicable rules — FRCP 62, FRAP 8, or state equivalents; local requirements
• Bond capacity — financial condition, surety availability, alternative security options

Document Structure

Section	Content
Caption	Court, parties with appellate designations, case number
Introduction	Judgment date, appeal date, specific irreparable harm
Procedural Posture	Orders entered, amounts, enforcement steps taken
Legal Standard	Governing rule + seminal cases; frame as balancing test
Four-Factor Analysis	See below
Bond/Security	Amount calculation, alternatives if needed
Proposed Conditions	Duration, reporting, asset preservation
Conclusion & Prayer	Strongest arguments synthesized; numbered relief requests

Four-Factor Analysis

Draft each factor as a separate headed section.

Factor 1 — Likelihood of Success on the Merits

• Identify 2–3 strongest legal errors; do not reproduce the appellate brief
• Cite controlling authority from the reviewing court
• Unsettled questions or first impression issues: argue uncertainty supports a stay
• Standard varies: "substantial question" vs. "strong showing" vs. sliding scale

Factor 2 — Irreparable Harm

• Quantify: dollar amounts, job losses, asset liquidation, license revocations
• Explain why monetary damages cannot compensate (unique property, dissolution, insolvency)