Attorney Search
Advocacy at a Higher Level

Horvitz & Levy is a solutions-based firm focused on appellate success. We are distinguished by our commitment to responsive service and on-going innovation in the areas of civil appellate litigation, amicus curiae support, and trial strategy consultation.

Our firm history, honors and awards, and locations speak to our collaborative approach and commitment to serving clients as well as the outstanding legal resources we bring to bear.

LEARN MORE ABOUT HORVITZ & LEVY
We pride ourselves in producing good results for our clients. Below are selected examples of our clients’ recent victories on appeal. Click the links to read more details.

Grossmont Union High School District v. Diego Plus Education Corporation (2021)

California Court of Appeal reverses orders that would have shut down charter schools serving at-risk students

Swanson v. The Marley-Wylain Company (2021)

California Court of Appeal reverses $5.5 million judgment in mesothelioma case due to instructional error

Sernas v. Cantrell (2021)

Ninth Circuit reverses district court’s dismissal of prisoner’s civil rights claim

Fishback v. FCA (2021)

Court of Appeal holds that trial court was not required to “show its work” when reducing or disallowing plaintiff’s attorney fees

Issakhani v. Shadow Glen Homeowners Association, Inc. (2021)

Court of Appeal holds property owner not liable for failing to provide onsite parking to invitee

Reynoso/Lozano v. AWI Management (2021)

Court of Appeal affirms order dismissing wrongful death/personal injury action

Khoshnevis v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (2021)

California Court of Appeal affirms order shifting costs to plaintiff who failed to recover more than defendant’s settlement offer.

Putt v. Ford Motor Co. (2021)

Court of Appeal reverses multimillion dollar jury verdict finding Ford 100% at fault in an asbestos case

Mann v. The Regents of the University of California (2021)

Court of Appeal affirms judgment on FEHA claims for the UC Regents, finding no error or prejudice in verdict form or jury instructions

Pinto v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (2021)

Court of Appeal holds that an insurer’s failure to accept a reasonable settlement demand is not per se unreasonable, disapproving a controversial model jury instruction

Page 11 of 36