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 affirmed the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County that sustained appellees' preliminary objection that determined that Mr. Werner had released appellees from liability in this tort case in an agreement that terminated the parties' business relationship.
Plaintiff moved for imposition of discovery sanctions for defendants' failure to comply with court-ordered discovery. The court scheduled a hearing on potential sanctions, concluding that defendants' past, intentional failure to provide discovery responses was obdurate, vexatious and contemptuous in nature.
Court granted sanctions motions due to plaintiff's unexcused failure to comply with discovery obligations, which prejudiced defendants' case preparation, and plaintiff's counsel's continued pursuit of discredited legal theories without conducting further investigation or submitting supporting evidence. Defendants' motions for sanctions granted in part.
The court granted summary judgment to employer on employee's claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, but denied summary judgment on the common law wrongful discharge claim which may proceed to a jury trial.
In this § 1925(a) opinion, the trial court recommended that appellant's pro se appeal of the court's order sustaining appellee's preliminary objections to the complaint and dismissing the complaint without prejudice be either quashed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to comply with Pa. R.A.P. 1925 or alternatively affirmed.
Publication Date: 2024-11-29 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Kunselman Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 1622 MDA 2023
Appellant appealed after he was sentenced for violating parole. The court quashed the appeal, holding that it was untimely filed where the Friday after Thanksgiving was not a legal holiday for which filing deadlines were extended to the following Monday.
Publication Date: 2024-11-29 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Stevens Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 138 WDA 2024
Appellant appealed the trial court's order denying his motion to vacate his sexually violent predator designation and lifetime registration requirements initially imposed under Megan's Law III. The court affirmed, holding that a SVP designated as such under the former Megan's Law III was lawfully subject to lifetime registration requirements under the subsequently-enacted Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act.
The court affirmed the district court's denial of appellants' motion to suppress evidence obtained after an investigative traffic stop. The safety measures taken by police to ensure the suspects did not possess dangerous weapons and jeopardize their safety were reasonable.
Plaintiff mortgage holder filed an ejectment action against defendant property owner. Upon trial, the court granted plaintiff's request for ejectment in part and denied it in part, holding that plaintiff had no right of ejectment to two of the three lots under the foreclosure action as filed where plaintiff failed to prove its ownership of those lots.
Publication Date: 2024-11-29 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Panella Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 1621 MDA 2023
Appellant appealed the trial court's judgment of sentence imposed after revocation of appellant's probation. The court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in revoking appellant's probation and imposing a term of incarceration where appellant initiated contact with a family member in violation of known conditions of supervision that were properly imposed by the probation department in light of appellant's original conditions of probation.