Phone: 888-465-3612

Brian C. Unitt Law Office | Certified Specialist In Appellate Law
888-465-3612

Four decades of skilled appellate advocacy across California

  1. Home
    2.  » 
  2. Appellate Law – Consultant
    3.  » Personal Injury

An adverse ruling or judgment in a Personal Injury case may Not be The End Of The Road

Someone who suffers a devastating injury in an accident deserves adequate compensation for those injuries. However, erroneous rulings by the trial court, before or during trial can lead to a complete dismissal of the case, or to improper limits on the plaintiff’s recovery. When you need to appeal the decision in your personal injury case, the Law Office of Brian C. Unitt can advise you and help you prepare a solid appeal.

Attorney Brian Unitt is a state bar certified civil appellate law specialist. He has handled over a hundred appeals and writs in personal injury and other civil cases in the California appellate courts and in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, since his admission to practice in 1983. With years of experience in appellate advocacy, he is a valuable resource for personal injury trial attorneys and their clients across California.

Appellate Experience You Can Count On

In high-stakes personal injury cases, any number of issues can arise before and during trial that may lead to an unfavorable outcome for your client. From demurrers and motions for summary judgment to excluded evidence, barring the testimony of an essential expert witness, and jury misconduct, having a plan to preserve a solid record can make all the difference if your case ends up on appeal.

Valuable Guidance From An Expert In Appellate Law

Whether you need to protect a favorable judgment, or overturn an adverse result, you need the advice and advocacy of an experienced specialist. Contact the Law Office of Brian C. Unitt at 888-465-3612 or online for valuable advice and guidance on your appeal. Offering free consultations, Brian can assist clients throughout California.

Significant Personal Injury Appeals:

Covarrubias v. Swinerton & Walberg Co., Second District, Division 4, B081012 unpublished, Review Denied, 10/30/1996 S055729.

Action for severe injuries suffered by a construction laborer who fell 50 feet during a demolition operation. Defendant general contractor was granted summary judgment based on Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689. The court of appeal reversed, finding there was evidence that defendant’s negligence contributed to the accident.

Velazques v. Metropolitan Water Dist., Fourth District, Division 2, E025952, 2002 WL 31820222

Construction laborer suffered electrical shock injury when a crane contacted energized power lines. Summary judgment for District reversed because a question of material fact precluded summary judgment under a dangerous condition of public property theory of liability.

Clark v. California Ins. Guar. Assn. (2011)  200 Cal.App.4th 391, 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 1

Judgment creditor could not recover costs and interest on the judgment in a direct action against CIGA.

Plattner v. City of Riverside (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1441, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 211, No. 285382, Gary B. Tranbarger, Judge

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the city in an action brought by an 80-year-old woman who, while on her way home from jury duty, was struck by a car while crossing a crosswalk where the streetlight was inoperative. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the city’s failure to maintain the streetlight over the crosswalk did not create a dangerous condition of public property because the city had no duty to install a streetlight over the crosswalk. Nor did the city have a duty to maintain the streetlight it had installed.

Yoshioka v. Superior Court (Todd) (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 972, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 553

Plaintiff in auto accident claim who could not prove he was insured at the time of the accident filed petition for writ of mandate seeking declaration that Proposition 213 was unconstitutional in both its retroactive and prospective application. The court denied the petition holding that retroactive application was consistent with the intent of the voters and did not deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, and did not violate the single subject rule.