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.
Court Of Appeal Finds Physician Failed To Exhaust Administrative Remedies In Medical Peer Review Matter
A physician brought administrative mandamus proceedings seeking to overturn a medical peer review determination that upheld the summary suspension of his medical staff privileges. His mandamus arguments, however, challenged a different decision than what the parties had agreed the peer review hearing committee would decide—the
Berroteran v. Superior Court (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 518
Court of Appeal grants petition for writ of mandate, vacating exclusion of key deposition evidence
Court of Appeal grants petition for writ of mandate, vacating exclusion of key deposition evidence
In a published decision that disagrees with a sister court decision, Wahlgren v. Coleco Industries, Inv. (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 543 (Wahlgren), the Court of Appeal granted GMSR’s petition for writ of mandate and directed the trial court to vacate in limine orders that had excluded
Wood v. Sparks Enterprises LP (Oct. 2, 2019, G056181) 2019 WL 4854837 [nonpublished opinion]
Court of Appeal affirms judgment for GMSR’s property owner client
Court of Appeal affirms judgment for GMSR’s property owner client
Plaintiff filed a negligence action against GMSR’s client, a shopping center owner, alleging that he was injured when he walked into a pole in a landscaped area separating a parking lot from the sidewalk. A jury found in favor of the property owner. Plaintiff appealed,
Daniels v. Southern California Edison Co. (July 8, 2019, E069183) 2019 WL 2912505 [nonpublished opinion]
Court of Appeal affirms judgment for GMSR’s utility client, finding no basis for liability following firefighter’s accident
Court of Appeal affirms judgment for GMSR’s utility client, finding no basis for liability following firefighter’s accident.
A firefighter was electrocuted when he touched the firetruck he was working on at the same time his crewmember rotated the truck’s aerial ladder into a 25-foot-high power line owned by GMSR’s client, Southern California Edison. The firefighter sued, alleging that Edison negligently failed to
GMSR’s client faced loss of her home on account of an unauthorized home equity loan from which she received nothing. Judgment for the lender reversed.
The issue on appeal was whether evidence of the homeowner’s execution of a written agreement with a third party ratified the third party’s previously unauthorized execution of a trust deed on her home. Since a trust deed must be in writing, under the “equal dignities
Etelaei v. First General Bank (June 18, 2019, B287186) 2019 WL 2511405 [nonpublished opinion]
GMSR’s client faced loss of her home on account of an unauthorized home equity loan from which she received nothing. Judgment for the lender reversed
Counting the minutes… Calculating the deadline for requesting a statement of decision, Daily Journal (June 10, 2019)
Dane-Elec Corp., USA v. Bodokh (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 761 is a cautionary tale for any proceeding that hovers around the eight-hour mark. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 632, if a trial concludes “within one calendar day or in less than eight hours over more
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.