Leon v. County of Riverside, S269672.
#21-409 Leon v. County of Riverside, S269672. (E073781; 64 Cal.App.5th 837; Riverside County Superior Court; RIC1722990.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Is immunity under Government Code section 821.6 limited
California Medical Assn. v. Aetna Health of California, Inc., S269212.
#21-379 California Medical Assn. v. Aetna Health of California, Inc., S269212. (B304127; 63 Cal.App.5th 660; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC487412.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does an
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.)
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
Prang v. Amen, S266590.
#21-130 Prang v. Amen, S266590. (B298794; 58 Cal.App.5th 246; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS173698.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does the term “stock” in Revenue and Taxation Code
Davis v. Fresno Unified School Dist., S266344.
#21-128 Davis v. Fresno Unified School Dist., S266344. (F079811; 57 Cal.App.5th 911; Fresno County Superior Court; 12CECG03718.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: Is a lease-leaseback arrangement in
Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC, S266034.
#21-50 Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC, S266034. (B293960; 56 Cal.App.5th 1052; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC638010.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal modified and affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does the statutory restitution
Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, S265223.
#20-396 Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, S265223. (A153520; nonpublished opinion; San Francisco County Superior Court; CGC15549675.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Did the Court of Appeal properly
Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, S263972.
#20-310 Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, S263972. (B295935; 51 Cal.App.5th 1002; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC616804.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. The court directed the parties to brief the following issue:
Boermeester v. Carry, S263180.
#20-249 Boermeester v. Carry, S263180. (B290675; 49 Cal.App.5th 682; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS170473.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case includes the following issue: Does the common law right
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.
As part of GMSR’s long-standing commitment to social justice and equality, GMSR provides pro bono appellate services to individuals and to community organizations on issues of concern.
© 2024 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Los Angeles
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90048
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.