California Supreme Court Watch
Share
#21-321 Sujan v. Corona Regional Medical Center, S268332.
#21-321 Sujan v. Corona Regional Medical Center, S268332. (E071217; nonpublished opinion; Riverside County Superior Court; RIC1717505.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a special motion to strike in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in
#21-316 Travis v. Brand, S268480.
#21-316 Travis v. Brand, S268480. (B298104, B301479; 62 Cal.App.5th 240; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC665330.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Must a
#21-270 Souliotes v. California Victim Compensation Bd., S267930.
#21-270 Souliotes v. California Victim Compensation Bd., S267930. (B295163; 61 Cal.App.5th 73; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS170608.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate and other
#21-251 In re D.P., S267429.
#21-251 In re D.P., S267429. (B301135; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 19CCJP00973). Petition for review after the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in a juvenile dependency proceeding. The court ordered the parties to brief and argue the following issues: (1) Is an
#21-217 Allied Premier Insurance v. United Financial Casualty Co., S267746.
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 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The question presented is: Does a commercial automobile insurance policy continue in full force and effect under the Motor Carriers of Property Permit Act (Veh. Code, § 34600 et seq.) until the insurer cancels the corresponding Certificate of Insurance on file with the California Department of Motor Vehicles, regardless of the insurance policy’s stated expiration date? (See Transamerica v. Tab Transportation (1995) 12 Cal.4th 389.)
#21-205 Pulliam v. HNL Automotive, S267576.
#21-205 Pulliam v. HNL Automotive, S267576. (B293435; 60 Cal.App.5th 396; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC633169.) This case presents the following issue: Does the word “recovery” as used in the Holder Rule (16 C.F.R. § 433.2) include attorney fees?
#21-185 Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, S267453.
#21-185 Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, S267453. (B293670; 60 Cal.App.5th 423; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC633651.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. This case includes the following
#20-98 Smith v. Loanme, Inc., S260391. (E069752; 43 Cal.App.5th 844; Riverside County Superior Court; RIC1612501.)
#20-98 Smith v. Loanme, Inc., S260391. (E069752; 43 Cal.App.5th 844; Riverside County Superior Court; RIC1612501.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case includes the following issue: Does Penal Code section 632.7 prohibit only third-party eavesdroppers from
#19-23 Kaanaana v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., S253458. (B276420, B279838; 29 Cal.App.5th 778; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC496090, BC594050.)
#19-23 Kaanaana v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., S253458. (B276420, B279838; 29 Cal.App.5th 778; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC496090, BC594050.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed a judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: Should the
#20-66 People v. Clark, S260202.
#20-66 People v. Clark, S260202. (G055874; 43 Cal.App.5th 270; Orange County Superior Court; 15NF1695). Review, which had been granted and held for People v. Moses (2020) 10 Cal.5th 893, was dismissed. Dismissed and remanded to CA 4/3: 03/24/2021
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.
© 2021 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
50 California Street, Suite 1500
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.