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 |
#143 in weekly profile views out of 281,296 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
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...
The "Abercrombie Hijab" Case: Motive is Dispositive Factor in Determining Whether Religious Discrimination Occurred
Tom Chauncey,Robert D. Haws,James W. Kaucher,Jennifer N. MacLennan,Susan Plimpton Segal, June 26, 2015
In 2008, Samantha Elauf applied for a job at Abercrombie & Fitch, a retail clothing store known for a distinctive style of clothing. A practicing Muslim, Ms. Elauf wore a headscarf to the interview. The store had a "look policy," which prohibited employees from wearing headgear of any...
Anti-Deficiency Protection For Vacant Lots? Not What The Arizona Supreme Court Intended
Kent E. Cammack,Christopher M. McNichol, April 15, 2015
On January 23, 2015, the Arizona Supreme Court held that Arizona's anti-deficiency statute protects only a completed residence. In so doing, it clarified a prior appellate court decision extending the statute's protections to borrowers who intend to turn vacant land into a future residence, but do...