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 moved to dismiss plaintiffs claims alleging that he suffered adverse employment actions in response to his alleged disability, request for accommodation and FMLA qualified leave and the court found that plaintiff failed to allege facts to show a causal connection between the exercise of his FMLA rights and his termination. Motion granted.
The court granted defendants motions for summary judgment on plaintiffs claims of conversion and fraud in plaintiffs actions based on an alleged investment agreement and the alleged misuse of the funds plaintiff provided.
Worker was properly classified as salaried employee exempt from overtime requirements where she exercised discretion and independent judgment as to staffing, training and discipline, and implementation of the employers policies and procedures. Defendants motion for summary judgment granted.
Trial court erred in finding parent in contempt for failure to encourage childs visitation with other parent, where prior orders did not include requirement for parent to encourage the child, and where record demonstrated that parent followed directives of resource center in terminating visits. Order of the trial court reversed and vacated.
Trial court correctly found for appellees in their common law fraud, breach of contract, breach of warranties and UTPCPL claims against home builder for defective stucco because the evidence supported the breach of warranties claim, the UTPCPL claim was not time-barred and appellees did not need to prove all the elements of common law fraud to state a claim under the UTPCPL catchall provision but trial court abused its discretion in calculating appellees attorney fees by limiting the award based on the contingency agreement.
The taxi companies who challenged petitioners application to purchase taxi operating rights were properly barred from introducing certain exhibits at an administrative hearing where they failed to produce those exhibits during discovery in accordance with 52 Pa. Code 5.321. The court affirmed a Public Utility Commission decision affirming the grant of petitioners application
Publication Date: 2017-10-24 Practice Area:Family Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Ott Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 17-1596
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in changing permanency goal to adoption after only seven months of foster care. Order of the trial court affirmed.
Insurance beneficiary designation was not statutorily invalidated due to the pendency of a divorce proceeding between the insured decedent and named beneficiary. Order of the orphans court affirmed.
Publication Date: 2017-10-24 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Stabile Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 17-1591
Defendant was not entitled to retroactive application of the holding in Birchfield v. North Dakota, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court held that the criminalization of a suspects refusal to consent to a blood test violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, since she failed to challenge the warrantless blood draw at any stage of the litigation prior to a nunc pro tunc post-sentence motion. The appellate court affirmed defendants judgment of sentence.
Plaintiffs asserting breach of warranty claims in this suit were not required to allege the precise dates and locations where they encountered defendants warranties since the court required only sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that the warranties were the bases of the parties bargain. The court denied in part defendants motion to dismiss.