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"
Board of finance and revenue properly refused to refund city of Philadelphia sales tax paid by taxpayer on beer purchased from distributors located in Philadelphia that was delivered to taxpayers bar in Delaware county because beer distributors were located within the city of Philadelphia, they sold beer to taxpayer and delivered it to taxpayer at a location within the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the fact that it was purchased for resale was irrelevant. Affirmed.
The court opined that its discovery order directing the defendant band members to produce their personal federal and state income tax returns for certain years was a non-final, interlocutory order that was not entitled to appellate review under the collateral order doctrine. The court recommended that defendants appeal be quashed.
Trial court erred in permitting fact witness to offer opinion without determining whether witness qualified as expert, where testimony offered sole alternative explanation for plaintiffs injury. Judgment reversed, case remanded.
Plaintiff was not entitled to post-trial relief because the evidence indicated defendant was entitled to terminate the parties contract. Additionally, plaintiff waived any objections to improper arguments by opposing counsel in closing argument by failing to adequately raise the issue at trial.
Validation notice violated FDCPA where it could have reasonably led debtor to believe he or she could orally dispute debt when only a written notice was effective, and where it required debtor to dispute a debt in less time than provided by FDCPA. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment granted.
Appeal of denial of unemployment compensation benefits denied where evidence supported conclusion that untimeliness of claimants appeal was attributable to her failure to read the notice of determination clearly establishing the deadline for appeal. Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed.
Plaintiff was not a party to or in privity with parties to a prior proceeding for a mortgage foreclosure, so res judicata and collateral estoppel did not bar plaintiffs action. The court reformed a mortgage to correct the parcel identification numbers, the mortgagee designation and the principal sum owed.
Where an insurer mistakenly issued a certificate for workers compensation insurance coverage, then later sent letters to the company requesting additional information and stating that no coverage was in effect, the company was on notice that it had no workers compensation insurance.
Publication Date: 2017-11-28 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Panella Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 17-1110
The trial court did not err in removing defendant from the sexual offender registry pursuant to the holding in Commonwealth v. Muniz, which overruled Commonwealth v. Demora and held that the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act was an unconstitutional ex post facto law when applied retroactively to sexual offenders convicted of applicable crimes before the acts effective date. The court affirmed the trial courts order.
Publication Date: 2017-11-28 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Stevens Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 17-1751
Criminal defendant could not raise PCRA petition pursuant to the holding in Birchfield v. North Dakota, where defendant had knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty to DUI, did not preserve a challenge to his warrantless blood draw, and was not raising a challenge to the legality of his sentence or voluntariness of guilty plea. Order of the PCRA court affirmed.