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.
Ninth Circuit affirms summary judgment in favor of GMSR clients in civil rights action
Robertson v. County of Ventura (9th Cir. 2008) 275 Fed.Appx. 594, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9071 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) [published]. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for two physicians who had been sued for violation of civil rights under
Robertson v. County of Ventura (9th Cir. 2008) 275 Fed.Appx. 594
Requirement of state action in civil rights action for physicians’ mandatory reporting of possible child abuse
Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara (Mar. 4, 2008, B180880) 2008 WL 565025 [nonpublished opinion]
Two family agribusiness entities sued Santa Barbara County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a supposed civil rights deprivation based on the County’s delineation of a wetland on a large parcel of land that one of the plaintiffs owned and the other wanted to farm.
John v. City of El Monte (9th Cir. 2008) 515 F.3d 936
Necessity for additional investigation once officer has probable cause for arrest
Whitaker v. Garcetti (9th Cir. 2007) 486 F.3d 572
Civil rights: unlawful search and seizure and notice issues regarding wiretaps; article III standing
Hearst v. Ganzi (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1195
Constitutional right of access to courts; liability of trustee for breach of fiduciary duty; immunity of trustee from exposure under will-contest safe harbor provisions
Williams v. County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2006) 205 Fed.Appx. 593
A prisoner filed a section 1983 action, pro se, against the County of Los Angeles, alleging he was denied a lower bunk even though he had medical authorization for one. The memorandum opinion holds that the district court: (1) properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s
Macias v. County of Los Angeles (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 313
Civil rights action arising from search of residence pursuant to search warrant
Marshall v. Marshall (2006) 547 U.S. 293
Claims based on interference with an inter vivos trust do not fall within the “probate” exception to federal jurisdiction
City of Riverside v. Valley Outdoor, Inc. (Sept. 13, 2005, E036258) 2005 WL 2233617 [nonpublished opinion]
Injunctive relief regarding removal of billboards; application of res judicata
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.