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.
Greines v. Ford Motor Co., Inc. (Jan. 7, 2003, B148400) 2003 WL 42524 [nonpublished opinion]
Summary judgment reversed in claim against automobile manufacturer for fraud and breach of warranty
Brown v. Regents of University of California (Sept. 30, 2002, C034381) 2002 WL 31160873 [nonpublished opinion]
Class certification denial; claim about hospital residents performing surgeries
Krause v. Wellisch (2000) 2000 Cal. LEXIS 5973
Doctor’s report protected by absolute privilege
FN Development v. Paragon Homes (2000, B123192)
Contract litigation re commercial and residential developments
Pelz v. Weider Management, Inc. (1999, C025517)
Impact of plaintiff’s refusal to testify under Fifth Amendment in fraud action
Fogarty v. Applied Vascular Devices (1999, H017037)
Breach of inventor’s royalty agreement; expert witnesses; special verdicts
Folksam General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fontana Films Sweden Aktiebolag (1998, B096184)
Award of attorneys’ fees to party who obtains expungement of a lis pendens
Pattiz v. Minye (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 822
Dismissal as terminating sanction not “favorable termination on the merits”
Gordon v. Nelson & Nelson (1997, B118119)
Terminating sanctions and default judgment for attorney’s discovery misconduct
Trent v. Regents of the University of California (1997, B110199)
Discretionary dismissal for delay in prosecution
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.