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"
The court declined to adopt a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applicable to blood draw evidence after the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota, as such an exception would frustrate the privacy guarantees of the Article 1, §8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The court affirmed an order granting defendants motion to suppress blood draw evidence.
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the data on the cell phone he abandoned in his haste to avoid state troopers following several motor violations, and the troopers were justified in the warrantless search of the specific phone given that they were attempting to pursue a fleeing suspect. The court denied defendants motion to suppress evidence.
Board erred in denying license reinstatement to petitioner who had successfully completed drug court and had his criminal charges dismissed because statements petitioner made to drug court were not admissions of guilt and he was not convicted since after drug court dismissed the charges, petitioners criminal record no longer existed and could not be used to deny reinstatement of his license. Reversed.
Commonwealth court panel erred in reversing the parole boards denial of credit to appellee on his state sentence for time he spent on detainer because board properly denied credit under Gaito v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 412 A.2d 568. Reversed.
District Court erred in denying appellant state officials motion for judgment on the pleadings in former employees malicious prosecution action brought after he was charged with concealing or destroying evidence that was the subject of a grand jury subpoena because even though the criminal procedure ended in his favor, there was probable cause to prosecute him based on a phone call made from his office desk. Reversed.
The court, at the parties request, construed six terms in plaintiffs patent infringement action.Plaintiff asserted that defendants infringed its patent in two separate civil action numbers
Publication Date: 2017-11-07 Practice Area:Family Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Bowes Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 17-1669
Trial court erred in granting primary physical custody to childs grandmother because its best interest analysis was contrary to precedent, failed to apply the presumption in favor of father in 5327(b) and improperly imposed the burden of proof on father. Reversed.
Commonwealth Court correctly found that the net loss carryover provision violated the uniformity clause of the Pennsylvania constitution but erred in its remedy of striking all caps in the NLC because that remedy contravened the legislatures intent and the proper remedy was to sever the $3 million flat deduction. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.