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.
GMSR wins affirmance of judgment enforcing prospective liability waiver
After the U.S. District Court affirmed the U.S. Bankruptcy Court’s confirmation of a Chapter 11 reorganization plan, a majority block of the debtor-in-possession’s insider equity shareholders appealed to the Ninth Circuit. As they did in the District Court, the insiders argued that the bankruptcy court
GMSR wins dismissal of lawsuit claiming entitlement to a reward
In the trial on cross-actions arising from loan transactions, Mr. Poster’s client recovered $86,890.64 in damages and $371,814 in attorney fees and costs. Adopting arguments urged by Mr. Poster, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and ordered that his client recover additional attorney fees
In this marital dissolution proceeding, the parties stipulated to having a temporary judge (a retired judge appointed under Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21) issue a judgment composed of two documents: A “Judgment” of dissolution and a simultaneously-executed “Further Judgment” detailing the resolution of property
Court of Appeal holds that GMSR’s landlord clients had no duty to inspect tenants’ unit for dangerous bombmaking activities
Reversing a defense judgment, the Court of Appeal holds that Labor Code section 98.7 does not require an employee to exhaust that statute’s administrative remedies before filing suit
Husband, GMSR’s client, entered the marriage with $16 million in separate property investments. The couple spent the first six years of the marriage living primarily off Husband’s separate property, acting as philanthropists and incurring annual community-property deficits of between $250,000 and $500,000. In the meantime,
GMSR obtains writ directing summary judgment in favor of UCLA in student’s negligence lawsuit
Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident. He sued the insured. The carrier, GMSR’s client, defended under a $100,000 limits policy. The plaintiff and the insured claimed that two other policies with $25,000 limits each also provided coverage. The plaintiff refused the carrier’s offer of
© 2025 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90048
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
50 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
© 2025 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
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.
