Gust Rosenfeld P.L.C.
Size of Organization: 55
Year Established: 1921Web Site: http://www.gustlaw.com
Telephone: 800-258-4878 Fax: 602-254-4878; 602-340-1538
|Profile Visibility |
#222 in weekly profile views out of 282,726 total law firms Overall
Gust Rosenfeld P.L.C. is a full-service law firm. Since 1921, firm attorneys have provided legal counsel to individuals, public and private corporations and units of local government. Our attorneys possess significant experience in municipal and public finance, real estate, corporate, litigation, employment, creditors' rights, intellectual property, education, franchises, trusts and estates, and tax law.
Martindale-Hubbell has augmented a firm's provided information with third-party sourced data to present a more comprehensive overview of the firm's expertise:
Peer Review Ratings
Total number of Peer Review Rated lawyers of Gust Rosenfeld P.L.C.:
Total number of Client Reviews for Gust Rosenfeld P.L.C.:
Documents by Gust Rosenfeld P.L.C. on Martindale.com
Title IX, Schools and Transgender Students
Robert D. Haws,Shelby M. Lile,Jennifer N. MacLennan,Susan Plimpton Segal, October 26, 2015
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently issued a decision in the emerging area of Title IX requirements with respect to transgender students. The plaintiff, a transgender high school student, filed suit under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, alleging...
Directional Signs Protected by the First Amendment
August 6, 2015
Temporary directional signs are protected by the First Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled. The Town of Gilbert, Arizona had an ordinance restricting the usage of outdoor signs, including temporary directional signs. The Town cited preservation of aesthetic appeal and roadway safety as...
Gallagher v. Tucson Unified School District
Robert D. Haws,Shelby M. Lile,Jennifer N. MacLennan,Susan Plimpton Segal, June 26, 2015
Under A.R.S. § 12-820.05(B), a public entity cannot be held liable for injuries arising from a felony committed by an employee. This immunity, however, disappears if the entity knew of the employee's propensity for that action. How far does this exception go? What if the public entity should...