Cases

GMSR has an enviable record of success on appeal. For your convenience, the firm has provided a simple search tool for guests and clients to search that record.

695 Case Results
Filter

In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 (amicus)

Constitutionality of statute providing that only heterosexual couples can marry (amicus curiae brief)

2008

Unruh-Haxton v. Regents of University of Cal. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 343

Action by fertility patients for unconsented use of genetic material

Robertson v. County of Ventura (9th Cir. 2008) 275 Fed.Appx. 594

Requirement of state action in civil rights action for physicians’ mandatory reporting of possible child abuse

2008

Prince v. Sutter Health Central (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 971

MICRA governs claims for non-economic damages from registered but unlicensed health care providers

Edwards v. Fire Insurance Exchange (Mar. 24, 2008, D050041) 2008 WL 762096

Claim for insurance benefits by purported assignee of policy

Emanuele v. Bisno (Mar. 13, 2008, A117913) 2008 WL 668020 [nonpublished opinion]

Nature of partnership; fiduciary duties arising from commercial real estate; compound interest in fraud case

Robins v. Roland (Mar. 7, 2018, B191659) 2008 WL 615865 [nonpublished opinion]

Two members of a purported partnership attempted to withdraw (or “dissociate”) and force the remaining partner to buy them out. The remaining partner disputed the existence of the partnership and refused to honor the dissociations. The trial court ultimately found that the dissociations were valid

Lyons v. Fire Insurance Exchange (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 880

A former professional baseball player and sometime network announcer made advances in a hotel hallway to a woman who had been flirting with him. He pulled her aside in order to do so. When she sued, he sought a defense under his homeowner’s policy, claiming

Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara (Mar. 4, 2008, B180880) 2008 WL 565025 [nonpublished opinion]

Two family agribusiness entities sued Santa Barbara County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a supposed civil rights deprivation based on the County’s delineation of a wetland on a large parcel of land that one of the plaintiffs owned and the other wanted to farm.