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.

648 Case Results
Filter
  • All Years
  • All Years
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1982
  • 1978
  • 1976
  • All Attorneys
  • All Attorneys
  • Brandon Broukhim
  • Joseph Bui
  • Alex Chemerinsky
  • Timothy T. Coates
  • Jeffrey Gurrola
  • David E. Hackett
  • Laurie J. Hepler
  • Tina Kuang
  • Laura Lim
  • Stefan C. Love
  • Hayley MacMillen
  • Robin Meadow
  • John J. Metzidis
  • Robert A. Olson
  • Marco Pulido
  • Jeffrey E. Raskin
  • Kylie Reynolds
  • Kent L. Richland
  • Alana H. Rotter
  • Katarina Rusinas
  • Cynthia E. Tobisman
  • Kent W. Toland
  • Gary J. Wax
  • Edward L. Xanders (Ted)
  • All Practice Areas
  • All Practice Areas
  • Administrative Law
  • Anti-SLAPP Law
  • Arbitration, Mediation & Settlement
  • Attorney Fees Litigation
  • Business Litigation
  • Civil Procedure
  • Constitutional Law
  • Contracts
  • Entertainment Law
  • Family Law
  • Government Liability
  • Healthcare Law
  • Insurance Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • Labor & Employment/Agency
  • Landowner Liability
  • Lemon Law
  • Probate and Trusts
  • Professional Malfeasance
  • Punitive Damages
  • Real Property
  • Tort Litigation
  • All Courts of Law
  • All Courts of Law
  • United States Supreme Court
  • United States Court of Appeals
  • California Supreme Court
  • California Court of Appeal
  • Other Jurisdiction

City of Ontario v. Quon (2010) 560 U.S. 746

Expectation of privacy in messages sent and received on his employer-issued device; Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures

Ladd v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1298

Studio’s undervaluation of film producers’ share of revenues; infringement of film producer’s rights

2010

Genji Torihara v. Regents of University of California (May 18, 2010, B215801) 2010 WL 1972262 [nonpublished opinion]

Plaintiff injured his foot when the wheelchair in which he was riding hit a wall. He was in the hospital at the time, being pushed between the CT room and the x-ray room, for doctor-ordered tests for possible head injuries. Plaintiff did not file his

2010

Levitt v. Ross (May 17, 2010, B212907) 2010 WL 1951133 [nonpublished opinion]

Malpractice action against family practice doctor, requires expert opinion on the standard of care of a family medicine physician

Lockton v. O’Rourke (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1051

Standard for determining continuous representation on same specific subject matter for purposes of tolling statute of limitations in attorney malpractice action

2010

Dillingham-Ray Wilson v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1396

Interpretation of public entity construction contract and application of Amelco principles

2010

Gordon v. Kawamoto (Apr. 9, 2010, B211948) 2010 WL 1408986 [nonpublished opinion]

Injuries suffered allegedly as a result of surgery at UCSD in November 2003 following a dune buggy accident. Action filed in April 2007 was for injuries suffered during subsequent surgeries by a different doctor in 2004 and 2005. In July 2007, plaintiff attempted to add

2010

Jackson v. San Leandro Hospital (Mar. 24, 2010, A126400) 2010 WL 1058652

Plaintiff suffered injuries suffered allegedly as a result of IV Dilantin administered to her for seizures. Defense introduced expert testimony that nothing the hospital did breached the standard of care or caused harm to the plaintiff. Plaintiff introduced no expert testimony to the contrary. The

2010
2010

Arellano v. Regents of University of California (Feb. 10, 2010, G041485) 2010 WL 455396 [nonpublished opinion]

Plaintiff was represented by two law firms, neither of which prepared or filed opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on the standard of care. One firm unilaterally withdrew from representing plaintiff a few days before the hearing and the other firm asked