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"
Defendant was entitled to summary judgment in plaintiffs action alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, unjust enrichment and tortious interference with economic advantage because plaintiffs admission in its German litigation and its 28 U.S.C. §1782 discovery action against defendant showed that plaintiff knew or should have known of the factual basis for the misappropriation claim by 2009 but did not file the action until 2014 and the action was time barred. Motion granted.
Trial court erred in holding that 85 acres used for an intermodal railroad facility was exempt from the PURTA tax and the case was remanded for the trial court to determine the amount of acreage used for certain specified uses of the property and whether any or all of that acreage satisfied the exemption in §1101-A(3)(ii). Vacated and remanded.
Trial court erred in applying statutory fingerprinting requirement upon individual following his acquittal on all charges, since the individuals acquittal meant he was no longer a defendant within the meaning of the fingerprinting statute. Order of the trial court reversed.
Plaintiffs claims for discrimination were under consideration by an administrative agency, so the court dismissed those claims because it lacked jurisdiction. The complaint properly alleged retaliation under whistleblower law, so the court overruled that preliminary objection.
The court refused to consider defendants untimely amended preliminary objections, filed more than 20 days after plaintiffs compliant, but considered and rejected a challenge to plaintiffs punitive damages allegations as they were sufficient to survive at the preliminary stages of the proceedings. The court sustained defendants preliminary objections in part.
In criminal cases, good faith required the commonwealth to turn over electronic files of voluminous discovery materials with a specific index and with exculpatory evidence obviously noted.
Publication Date: 2018-02-20 Practice Area:Family Law Industry: Court:Commonwealth Court Judge:Judge Leavitt Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0179
ALJ erred on remand by disregarding the unchanged evidentiary record and by failing to relate the change in his credibility determinations to the appropriate standard of proof and glossed over the evidence of taint in childs testimony in stepfathers action for expungement of an indicated report naming him as a perpetrator of child sexual abuse. Reversed.
While defendants failed to persuade the court that the parties agreement evidences an intent to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability, their proposed interpretation of the agreement was not so lacking in support as to warrant the grant of sanctions. The court denied plaintiffs motion for sanctions.
Publication Date: 2018-02-20 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Stevens Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0172
Trial court erred in suppressing evidence, where defendants furtive movements and refusal to remove hands from pockets, while in a high-crime area, gave officers responding to a call of an individual with a firearm reasonable suspicion to believe defendant may have been armed and dangerous and supported a stop-and-frisk. Order of the trial court reversed, case remanded.
Court granted defendants motion for summary judgment because res judicata barred plaintiffs action asserting that defendant breached his fiduciary and legal duties as their top executive because defendants successful action in Germany over his termination was based on an essential similarity of underlying events and the defendant in the German case was in privity with plaintiffs. Motion granted.