GMSR has helped shape constitutional law, handling cutting-edge cases involving privacy, searches and seizures, due process, and the First Amendment. In addition to extensive experience in the federal circuit courts, GMSR has also appeared repeatedly in the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years.
City Of Los Angeles Prevails In Ninth Circuit E-Scooter Appeal, Supported By GMSR’s Amicus Brief
Faced with a near-overnight proliferation of motorized electric scooters on sidewalks and streets, the City of Los Angeles required e-scooter companies (e.g., Bird, Lime, and Lyft) to provide vehicle location data through a widely-used national interface called Mobility Data Specification. An e-scooter user sued the
B.Q. v. Dekok (9th Cir. 2020) 825 Fed.Appx. 533
Plaintiff, a seventh-grade student, claimed that a teacher’s use of inaccurate and negative translations of Sharia law to teach a unit on religion to students violated the Establishment Clause. The district court dismissed the suit, finding that the teacher was entitled to qualified immunity because
Ninth Circuit affirms qualified immunity for teacher sued by student for violation of the Establishment Clause
Ninth Circuit affirms qualified immunity for teacher sued by student for violation of the Establishment Clause
Easley v. City of Riverside (9th Cir. 2018) 890 F.3d 851
Plaintiff Michael Easley jumped out of a car that had just led police officers on a high speed chase, and ran down a residential street. As he ran, he pulled a gun out of his pants, raised it across his body, and threw it like
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects California’s Assertion Of Personal Jurisdiction Over Drugmaker
In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (June 19, 2017, Case No. 16-466), the United States Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 that California lacks “specific” personal jurisdiction over a pharmaceutical company, reversing a 4-3 decision last year by the California Supreme Court. The case arises
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects California’s Assertion Of Personal Jurisdiction Over Drugmaker
In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (June 19, 2017, Case No. 16-466), the United States Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 that California lacks “specific” personal jurisdiction over a pharmaceutical company, reversing a 4-3 decision last year by the California Supreme Court. The case arises
GMSR secures another win on appeal, this time in Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment v. Castaic Lake Water Agency
Santa Clarita Org. for Planning & Environment v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1084. In a published opinion, Division 2 of the Second DCA upheld the right of GMSR’s client, the Castaic Lake Water Agency, to acquire all of the stock of a privately
Santa Clarita Organization for Planning & Environment v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1084.
In a published opinion, Division 2 of the Second DCA upheld the right of GMSR’s client, the Castaic Lake Water Agency, to acquire all of the stock of a privately held water company via inverse condemnation, and rejected the contention that the transaction violated various
GMSR wins its second U.S. Supreme Court case in less than a year, making it seven Supreme Court victories in seven years
Stanton v. Sims, 571 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 3; 187 L.Ed.2d 341 (United States Supreme Court). In response to GMSR’s certiorari petition, the United States Supreme Court did not simply grant the petition, but—without further briefing or oral argument—issued a full opinion summarily reversing
Stanton v. Sims (2013) 571 U.S. 3
Officer entitled to qualified immunity from suit for warrantless entry into home in hot pursuit of fleeing misdemeanant
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.
© 2022 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.