Renfrew LawRenfrew Law



Following, in alphabetical order, are some of the published opinions in appellate proceedings in which we have served as sole or lead counsel:

ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (Fourth Dist., 2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993 [113 Cal.Rptr.2d 625] (Internet postings case. After the trial court denied our anti-SLAPP motion as to all of nine causes of action of the complaint, we obtained reversal and dismissal by the Court of Appeal as to five of those causes of action. We subsequently prevailed at the trial court level on all remaining causes of action, and currently are engaged in a malicious prosecution action against those who initiated or prosecuted the underlying action against our clients.)

Hypolite v. Carleson (First Dist., 1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 979 [108 Cal.Rptr. 751] (Following rejection of our petition in the trial court, we succeeded in the Court of Appeal in obtaining, in this class action, invalidation on constitutional and statutory grounds of a California regulation resulting in denial of Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits to children abandoned by both parents. We maintained that successful result through our opponent’s unsuccessful petition for review to the California Supreme Court, and petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.)

In re Steinberg (Second Dist., 1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 14 [195 Cal.Rptr. 613] (We successfully represented a documentary filmmaker, on habeas corpus, on grounds a trial court’s contempt order for failure to comply with an order to submit his film to the court for confiscation or editing violated the First Amendment.)

Sehlmeyer v. Department of General Services (Second Dist. 1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1072 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 840] (We successfully represented a patient whose related and unrelated medical records were subpoenaed, without notice to her, for use in an administrative disciplinary proceeding in which she was a complaining witness, on grounds such subpoenas violated her right to privacy under Article I §1 of the California Constitution.)

Wilcox v. Superior Court (Second Dist., 1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 809 [33 Cal.Rptr.2d 446] (The first published opinion under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure §425.16. In this extraordinary writ proceeding, we represented Petitioner Wilcox, successfully obtaining reversal of the trial court’s denial of her anti-SLAPP motion in action brought against Wilcox for defamation and conspiracy to unlawfully restrain trade through a boycott of defendants' services after she contributed financially to the maintenance of a lawsuit against defendant and urged others to do the same. Thereafter, we prosecuted a SLAPP-Back action on behalf of Wilcox and certain others similarly situated.)

Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811 [123 Cal.Rptr.2d 19] (Unlike the other cases here mentioned, we did not represent Wilson in the underlying proceedings. We were unable to obtain reversal of the trial court's order in Wilson’s “SLAPP-Back” malicious prosecution action [in which he was represented by other counsel] sustaining his demurrer without leave to amend on grounds his malicious prosecution action was precluded by initially adverse orders in underlying proceedings, even though those adverse orders were subsequently reversed. Our success in this Supreme Court proceeding was limited to obtaining some restriction of the circumstances in which certain “adverse interim rulings” in an underlying action are deemed to give rise to a “conclusive presumption” that the underlying action was prosecuted with probable cause.)

May 27, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack