Procedural issues create many traps for the unwary: Irregularities in trial court proceedings or ambiguous verdicts may require a new trial; failing to raise an objection in the trial court can foreclose appellate review of an issue; a settlement that purports to preserve the right to appeal can moot the appeal. The list goes on and on. GMSR is experienced in spotting procedural defects and navigating nuances that can be dispositive on appeal. For that reason, trial counsel and clients often consult with GMSR’s appellate lawyers as a case progresses, in order to maximize their chances of success in an eventual appeal. GMSR’s appellate lawyers have also gotten appeals dismissed, revived litigation that should not have been dismissed, and successfully developed arguments for affirmance or reversal, all based on procedural issues.
Fire Insurance Exchange v. National Union Fire Insurance (1995, D020312)
Whether summary judgment for insurer in bad faith action was “favorable termination” for subsequent malicious prosecution action
Lawley v. Ecology Auto Wreckers (1995, B065177)
Adequacy of superior court’s specification of reasons for granting new trial
Mungo v. City National Bank (1995, B084558)
Impact of entry of judgment on trial court’s power to reconsider summary judgment; lender liability
Consolidated International Automotive, Inc. v. Kuang Shiung Chen (Freedman R.P.I.) (9th Cir. 1994) 51 F.3d 279 [nonpub. opn.]
$85,000 sanctions for alleged inadequate pre-filing investigation of merits
Main Line Pictures, Inc. v. Basinger (Sept. 22, 1994, B077509) 1994 WL 814244 [nonpublished opinion]
Judgment reversed because prejudicially ambiguous jury instruction
Rogalski v. Nabers Cadillac (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 816
Insurer’s failure to provide defense in wrongful termination suit as ground to set aside default judgments
Valenzuela v. Sears (Dec. 19, 1991, E007882)
Proper procedural steps necessary to preserve cause of action against defendant who dies during trial
George v. Internat. Society for Krishna Consciousness (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 729
Amending tort judgment to add additional religious corporations while appeal from original judgment was pending
Honda Motor Co. v. Salzman (Alaska 1988) 751 P.2d 489
Terminating discovery sanctions against corporate defendant
Aguilar v. Los Angeles County (9th Cir. 1985) 751 F.2d 1089
Injured child was an indispensable party whose joinder destroyed diversity
Browse By Practice Area
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.