×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔

McCormick Barstow LLPPartner
Scott M Reddie

Scott M Reddie

Not yet reviewed

7647 N. Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93720

State and Federal Writs and Appeals and Appellate Litigation

About Scott M Reddie

Scott M Reddie is a lawyer practicing state and federal writs and appeals, appellate litigation. Scott received a B.A. degree from University of California, Los Angeles in 1991, and has been licensed for 32 years. Scott practices at McCormick Barstow LLP in Fresno, CA.

Scott M Reddie (Fresno, California)

Awards

Distinguished Peer Rated
This award is granted to attorneys who have been recognized by their peers for very high ethical standards, with an average peer review score of 3.0 to 4.4.
Martindale-Hubbell Peer BV

Client Champion Awards

Client Champion awards recognize those attorneys who excel at service as affirmed by their clients. The awards, based on the quantity and quality of an attorney’s Martindale-Hubbell client reviews, demonstrate an ongoing commitment to delivering excellent client service. Award recipients stand out from their peers with a platinum, gold or silver icon.

Champion Badge Silver

At least three reviews and a score of 4.0 or higher.

Champion Badge Gold

At least six reviews and a score of 4.2 or higher.

Champion Badge Platinum

At least ten reviews and a score of 4.5 or higher.

Martindale Peer Awards

A lawyer who receives a minimum threshold of qualifying responses from fellow attorneys can qualify for one of three prestigious Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings:

Martindale-Hubbell Peer AV Preeminent Rating

AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

Martindale-Hubbell Peer Distinguished Rating

Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

Scott M Reddie got this award in 2021

Martindale-Hubbell Peer Notable Rating

Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Avvo Awards

Avvo Top Contributor

Avvo Top Contributor: The Avvo Top Contributor Award is granted to attorneys who have earned significant contribution points in a given year on our sister site, Avvo.com. Contribution points are earned by answering questions in Q&A, publishing Legal Guides, and other useful contributions to the Avvo community.

Avvo Client Choice

Avvo Client’s Choice: The Avvo Client's Choice Award Badge is granted to attorneys with a significant number of 4+ star reviews in a given year.

Reviews for Scott

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Other 2
    • State and Federal Writs and Appeals
    • Appellate Litigation

Practice Details

  • Firm Information
    Position
    Partner
    Firm Name
    McCormick Barstow LLP
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Reported Cases: PUBLISHED APPELLATE DECISIONS:Romero v. Shih (2024) 15 Cal.5th 680
    Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (Nev. Supreme Court 2023) 536 P.3d 915
    Tulare Lake Canal Co. v. Stratford Public Utility District (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 380
    Bull Field, LLC v. Merced Irrigation District (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 442
    Smart Corner Owners Association v. CJUF Smart Corner LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 439
    Colucci v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 442.
    Atwell Isl
    Water District v. Atwell Isl
    Water District (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 624
    Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 595
    J. H. Boyd Enterprises, Inc. v. Boyd (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 802
    Hansen v. S
    ridge Partners, L.P. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1020.
    Palacio v. Jan & Gail's Care Homes, Inc. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1133
    Grenier v. Taylor (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 471
    People v. Spriggs (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 150
    Driscoll v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 630
    Federal Insurance Co. v. Steadfast Insurance Co. (2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 668
    Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor St
    ards Enforcement v. Davis Moreno Construction (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 560
    People's Capital & Leasing Corp. v. BIG3D, Inc. (In re BIG3d, Inc.), 438 B.R. 214 (9th Cir. BAP 2010) (en banc)
    Central Valley Ag Enterprises v. United States of America, 531 F.3d 750 (9th Cir. 2008)
    Busseto Foods, Inc. v. Laizure (In re Laizure), 548 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2008)
    Capobianco v. Trew (In re Capobianco), 248 B.R. 833 (9th Cir. BAP 2000)
    SUCCESSFUL UNPUBLISHED APPELLATE DECISIONS: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Commonwealth L
    Title Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 4/4/2024) 2024 WL 1461998
    Wu v. Crestview Dr Laguna Beach, LLC (2/8/2024) 2024 WL 484857
    In re Marriage of Lemos (9/28/2023) 2023 WL 6302196
    K
    ola v. Sahota (2/8/2023) 2023 WL 1814701
    Rabo AgriFinance, LLC v. Valadao (1/31/2023) 2023 WL 1181379
    In re Marriage of Opinski (11/17/2022) 2022 WL 17038752
    Young v. Luxury Estates Group, LLC (4/7/2022) 2022 WL 1042899
    Carter v. Homestreet Bank (2/4/2022) 2022 WL 333933
    Slosar v. Pristine Surgery Center, Inc. (8/24/2021) 2021 WL 3732748
    Boyd v. J.H. Boyd Enterprises, Inc. (11/20/2020) 2020 WL 6817574
    Kenco Investments, Inc. v. Marsh (6/24/2020) 2020 WL 3444435
    Boyd v. J.H. Boyd Enterprises, Inc. (6/1/2020) 2020 WL 2832401
    McCaffery v. Madera Community Hospital (11/21/19) 2019 WL 6208338
    Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (9/24/19) 2019 WL 4639103
    J. H. Boyd Enterprises, Inc. v. Boyd (3/6/19) 2019 WL 1055324
    Roberts v. The Permanente Medical Group, Inc., 690 Fed.Appx. 535 (9th Cir. 5/4/17)
    Halloum v. McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth, et al. (In re Halloum), 689 Fed.Appx. 544 (9th Cir. 4/11/17)
    Ekelem v. Kwajei (3/16/17) 2017 WL 1026125
    Integrated Voting Solutions, Inc. v. Automated Ballot Concepts, LLC (1/26/17) 2017 WL 235229
    Halloum v. Ryder (In re Halloum), 2016 WL 3597436 (9th Cir. BAP 6/28/16)
    Grow L
    & Water, LLC v. McCarthy Family Farms (8/1/16) 2016 WL 4073940
    Fresno Truck Center v. Ksendzovsky (1/28/2016) 2016 WL 34860
    Carlson v. Carlson (10/6/2015) 2015 WL 5826761
    Moran v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (8/27/2015) 2015 WL 5068868
    In re Marriage of Dutcher (10/28/2014) 2014 WL 5454191
    Kevorkian v. Hurlbutt (10/9/2014) 2014 WL 5035950
    Padilla v. Healthsouth Bakersfield Rehab. Hospital (6/23/2014) 2014 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 4391
    Harris v. Bon
    er (5/29/2014) 2014 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 3804
    Kitchens v. Pierce, 584 Fed.Appx. 302 (9th Cir. 1/14/14)
    Hern
    ez v. Levatino (7/18/2013) 2013 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 5052
    Leon v. Pearson Realty (4/17/2013) 2013 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 2726
    Sinclair v. Katakis (1/23/2013) 2013 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 509
    Via Montana, LLC v. Beukers (11/16/2012) 2012 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 8147
    In re Abureyaleh (10/1/2012) 2012 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 7168
    In re Lewis (2/15/2012) 2012 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 1124
    Moran v. Superior Court (Kaiser Foundation Health Plan) (11/16/2011) 2011 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 8766
    Dickey v. Superior Court (7/26/2011) 2011 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 5578
    Miller v. London Properties (1/13/2011) 2011 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 282
    Brewer v. California High Reach & Employment Rental (5/4/2010) 2010 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 3230
    Roberson v. Roberson (3/16/2010) 2010 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 1906
    Ennis Commercial Properties v. Paregian (1/13/2010) 2010 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 266
    Vo v. Mitsathaphone (11/23/2009) 2009 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 9403
    Gallagher & Miersch v. Bacchus Vineyards (6/18/2009) 2009 Cal.App.Unpub. LEXIS 4935
    Flores v. McClell
    (5/1/2009) 2009 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 3466
    Williams v. Seferyan (6/6/2008) 2008 Cal.App.Unpub. LEXIS 4608
    City of Martinez v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 152 Fed.Appx. 669 (9th Cir. 10/19/2005)
    Rudnick v. Rudnick (4/25/2003) 2003 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 4173
    National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Garber, 45 Fed.Appx. 564 (9th Cir. 4/16/2002)
    Garber v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 2000 U.S.App.LEXIS 11778 (9th Cir. 5/22/2000)
    Moyer v. Marshack (In re Mark Industries), 1998 U.S.App.LEXIS 21510 (9th Cir. 3/2/1998)
    Fischer v. Sevier, 1998 U.S.App.LEXIS 2763 (9th Cir. 2/9/1998)

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    1994, California
    Memberships

    Associations

    Mr. Reddie is a member of the State Bar of California, the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers, and the Appellate Law Section of the Fresno County Bar Association.

    Mr. Reddie is a prior member of the Advisory Committee on Appellate Courts for the California Lawyers Association Litigation Section (2015-2019) and the Federal Litigation Section's Appellate Committee of the Federal Bar Association.

  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    Pepperdine University
    Class of 1994
    J.D.
    Other Education
    University of California, Los Angeles
    Class of 1991
    B.A.
    Economics
    Legal Certifications
    Certified Specialist, Appellate Law, The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization

Scott M Reddie

Partner at McCormick Barstow LLP
Not yet reviewed

7647 N. Fresno StreetFresno, CA 93720U.S.A.

Show on map

Lawyers Nearby

John L. Burris
Pro
John L. Burris
4.9
3
General Practice lawyer
341-253-0523
View Profile
David L. Fiol
Pro
David L. Fiol
5.0
20
General Practice lawyer
628-243-4845
View Profile
Hillary Johns
Pro
Hillary Johns
5.0
54
General Practice lawyer

Free Consultation

747-400-1329
View Profile
Jeremy D. Cloyd
Pro
Jeremy D. Cloyd
4.8
21
General Practice lawyer
628-786-5132
View Profile
Richard Allan Ballesteros
Pro
Richard Allan Ballesteros
4.9
18
General Practice lawyer
925-391-9630
View Profile

Email Scott M Reddie

Case type is required.
I am is required.
First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid zip code is required.
Country is required.
State is required.
A valid city is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA. See Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to test@test.com.

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
I am a/an:
First Name:
Last Name:
City:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
State:
Country:
Phone Number:
Message:
Return to Profile Reset Form
Lawyers.com Client Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review Ratings™ display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms.

The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. People who submit reviews are either individuals who consulted with the lawyer/law firm or who hired the lawyer/law firm and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals.

Martindale-Hubbell validates that a reviewer is a person with a valid email address. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page

Martindale Peer Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ are the gold standard in attorney ratings, and have been for more than a century. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice.

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbell’s extensive attorney database. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating.

What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*

• AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

• Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

• Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed.

Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites.

For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings™, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions