Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Get alerted any time new stories match your search criteria. Create an alert to follow a developing story, keep current on a competitor, or monitor industry news.
Thank You!
Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
How To Use Search Constraints
Categorical
judge:"Steven Andrews"
court:Florida
topic:"Civil Appeals"
practicearea:Lobbying
Boolean
"Steven Andrews" AND Litigation
"Steven Andrews" OR "Roger Dalton"
Litigation NOT "Roger Dalton"
"Steven Andrews" AND Litigation NOT Florida
Combinations
(Florida OR Georgia) judge:"Steven Andrews"
((Florida AND Georgia) OR Texas) topic:"Civil Appeals"
Wesley-Keith Mullings appealed the district court's dismissal of his claims related to a custody dispute involving his ex-wife, Aisha Margaret Smith, and their now-adult son.
Hostile work environment claims failed where plaintiff failed to show employer knew or should have known about harassing conduct by employees and where the record demonstrated that employer offered an avenue for employees to report harassment.
Appellants appealed from the trial court's order dismissing their complaint against appellee for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reversed and remanded, holding that a Chinese company's deregistration under Chinese law did not deprive the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over the company's lawsuit where Pennsylvania law provided that the company continued to exist for the duration of the litigation.
Appellant county appealed the trial court's order sustaining appellees' preliminary objections and dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed, holding that the doctrine of nullum tempus did not apply to circumvent the Statute of Repose on appellant's construction defect claims where the county voluntarily contracted for construction of its jail in approximately 1981, rather than being obligated to do so by law.
Publication Date: 2024-11-22 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Colins Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 1192 MDA 2023
Appellant appealed the trial court's judgment of sentence entered on his jury trial conviction for carrying a firearm without a license and related crimes. The court affirmed, holding that Commonwealth was not required to introduce evidence that a pistol in appellant's possession was an operable firearm in order to obtain appellant's conviction where no evidence was introduced to indicate that the firearm was, in fact, inoperable.
Appellant appealed the trial court's verdict in favor of appellee in appellee's action for defamation and related claims. The court requested that the Superior Court affirm its verdict and dismiss the appeal as improperly requested where appellant filed no post-trial motions as necessary to preserve issues for appeal, and where no judgment had yet been entered, from which appellant might appeal in the first instance.
The court reversed the trial court's order overruling the preliminary objections of Pittsburgh Public Schools to the complaint filed by plaintiff, the mother and court-appointed guardian of a 19-year-old intellectually disabled student who was sexually assaulted on a school bus by a substitute driver.
The court affirmed the trial court's order disposing of appellants' claims that sought to abate a nuisance, constant traffic flow and blinding floodlights, and an injunction enjoining appellee from converting its adjacent property from residential to apartment and commercial use until appellee complied with the Taylor Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance because SALDO did not apply to appellees' development.
Landlord petitioners sought review of respondent Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission's final order awarding damages and a civil penalty for petitioners' failure to accommodate a residential tenant's disability. The court vacated in part and remanded, holding in part that respondent's findings in support of its damages award for the tenant's humiliation and embarrassment were unsupported in the record where respondent erroneously deemed petitioners' refusal to allow installation of permanent shower grab bars to be an "ongoing" viol