California Supreme Court Watch
#18-132 Skidgel v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., S250149. (A151224; 24 Cal.App.5th 574, mod. 25 Cal.App.5th 277a; Alameda County Superior Court; RG16810609.)
#18-132 Skidgel v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., S250149. (A151224; 24 Cal.App.5th 574, mod. 25 Cal.App.5th 277a; Alameda County Superior Court; RG16810609.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Are In
#18-131 Rockefeller Technological Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzou Sinotype Technology Co., Ltd., S249923. (B272170; 24 Cal.App.5th 115; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS149995.)
#18-131 Rockefeller Technological Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzou Sinotype Technology Co., Ltd., S249923. (B272170; 24 Cal.App.5th 115; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS149995.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a motion to set aside the judgment in a civil
#18-127 Nationwide Biweekly Administration. Inc. v. Superior Court, S250047. (A150264; 24 Cal.App.5th 438; Alameda County Superior Court; RG15770490.)
#18-127 Nationwide Biweekly Administration. Inc. v. Superior Court, S250047. (A150264; 24 Cal.App.5th 438; Alameda County Superior Court; RG15770490.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Is there a right to
#18-126 Hipsher v. Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Assn., S250244. (B276486; 24 Cal.App.5th 740, mod. 25 Cal.App.5th 277c; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS153372.)
#18-126 Hipsher v. Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Assn., S250244. (B276486; 24 Cal.App.5th 740, mod. 25 Cal.App.5th 277c; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS153372.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal modified and affirmed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate.
#18-116 Reilly v. Marin Housing Authority, S249593. (A149918; 23 Cal.App.5th 425; Marin County Superior Court; CIV1503896.)
#18-116 Reilly v. Marin Housing Authority, S249593. (A149918; 23 Cal.App.5th 425; Marin County Superior Court; CIV1503896.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issue: Are payments by the
#18-115 Saint Francis Memorial Hospital v. State Dept. of Public Health, S249132. (A150545; 24 Cal.App.5th 617; San Mateo County Superior Court; CIV537118.)
#18-115 Saint Francis Memorial Hospital v. State Dept. of Public Health, S249132. (A150545; 24 Cal.App.5th 617; San Mateo County Superior Court; CIV537118.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the
#18-113 Gund v. County of Trinity, S249792. (C076828; 24 Cal.App.5th 185; Trinity County Superior Court; 11CV080.)
#18-113 Gund v. County of Trinity, S249792. (C076828; 24 Cal.App.5th 185; Trinity County Superior Court; 11CV080.) Review ordered on the court’s own motion after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Were plaintiffs engaged in
#18-112 Abbott Laboratories v. Superior Court, S249895. (D072577; 24 Cal.App.5th 1, mod. 24 Cal.App.5th 927b; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2016-00879117.)
#18-112 Abbott Laboratories v. Superior Court, S249895. (D072577; 24 Cal.App.5th 1, mod. 24 Cal.App.5th 927b; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2016-00879117.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Does a district
#18-96 Planning & Conservation League v. Padilla, S249859. Original proceeding.
#18-96 Planning & Conservation League v. Padilla, S249859. Original proceeding. The court issued an order to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted. This case involves the validity of a ballot initiative proposing the division of California into three
#18-92 White v. Square, Inc., S249248. (9th Cir. No. 16-17137; 891 F.3d 1174; Northern District of California No. 3:15-cv-04539-JST.)
#18-92 White v. Square, Inc., S249248. (9th Cir. No. 16-17137; 891 F.3d 1174; Northern District of California No. 3:15-cv-04539-JST.) Request under California Rules of Court rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States
Who We Serve
Whether on appeal, assisting trial counsel, or advising government officials contemplating legislative action, GMSR provides unique insight into the complex laws that impact public entities.
Where coverage may exist, GMSR represents insureds on appeal effectively and efficiently. Where it does not, the firm protects insurers’ right to deny claims.
GMSR offers corporate clients objective assessments on appeal, based on a deep understanding of the limitations and opportunities of appellate review.
The firm’s lawyers are team players, collaborating with trial counsel at any level from legal strategy to writing or editing trial court motions and appellate briefs.
GMSR vigorously advocates the rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants, in both state and federal appellate courts.
© 2018 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Los Angeles
5900 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th floor
Los Angeles, CA 90036
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
San Francisco
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
We welcome your inquiry. However, sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship. For that reason, you should not send us any kind of confidential information. Until we have agreed to represent you, we cannot be obligated to keep it confidential.