Flyer & FlyerA Professional Law Corporation

Published Opinions

Published California Appellate Opinions in Which Attorney David R. Flyer Represented the Prevailing Party

McCloskey v. Carlton Builders , 165 Cal. App. 3d 689 (2d Dist., 1985) (affirming summary judgment for my client the defendant and rejecting plaintiff’s claim for entitlement to state a new cause of action with each repeated land subsidence).

More Than 30 Years of Commercial Litigation and Intellectual Property Experience

Contact Flyer & Flyer, a Professional Law Corporation

American Empire Surplus Lines, Ins. Co., v. G.E. Leach Construction , 223 Cal. App. 3d 226 (2d Dist., 1990) (reversing trial court and holding for plaintiff my client, on declaratory relief action asserting no coverage for construction of encroaching building based on the trigger of coverage).

Desplancke v. Ron Wilson Construction . 14 Cal. App. 4th 631 (2d Dist., 1993) (summary judgment affirmed, construction liability case where plaintiff was unlicensed contractor).

Cinnamon Square Shopping Center v. Meadowlark Enterprises , 24 Cal. App. 4th 1837 (4th Dist., Div. 3, 1994) (affirming trial court verdict, commercial restaurant lease, prevailed on behalf of tenant where landlord improperly calculated rent).

In re Shoshana B. (pdf) , 34 Cal. App. 4th 584 (4th Dist., Div. 3) (April 28, 1995) (dismissing appeal challenging custody award in juvenile court, based on the Hague Convention and International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 USC Sections 11601 et. seq., thereby prevailing on behalf of my client, the child’s father), decert.

Brown v. Brown , 71 Cal. App. 4th 558 (4th Dist., Div. 3, 1999) (family law case concerning jurisdiction over move-away based on the Hague Convention and ICARA).

Shelley Stark Brown v Orange County Department of Social Services, et al. (pdf), U.S. District Court Case No. SACV94-452 AHS (BWRx) (family law case with special circumstances under the Hague Convention, which is implemented under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 USC §§11601, et seq.) In this case, clear and convincing evidence was submitted to justify denial of return of child to her habitual residence.