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"
Appellant's convictions of two Hobbs Act robberies and two gun charges pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) were affirmed despite a finding that the district court erred in giving a jury instruction that an attempted Hobbs Act robbery was a crime of violence.
Matthew Puccio, a sales representative for Rep Network, appealed his conviction for conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, arguing that the district court erred in instructing the jury on willful blindness and in applying a managerial role enhancement under Sentencing Guideline § 3B1.1.
College's in-depth investigation of sexual assault claim supported the reasonableness of going three times over the standard investigation period, demonstrating that college did not act with deliberate indifference in violation of Title IX. Judgment of the district court affirmed.
Publication Date: 2024-09-06 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Lazarus Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 515 WDA 2023
Commonwealth appealed the trial court's order denying its request to impanel a death-qualified jury. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court acted outside its legal authority in usurping Commonwealth's ability to seek the death penalty by prohibiting the parties from proffering voir dire questions necessary to death-qualify a jury, and by ruling that there would be no jury deliberations regarding sentencing in a defendant's criminal homicide trial.
Trial court erred in finding tax claim bureau took reasonable efforts to locate property owner by relying on bureau's statutory publication requirement and where the bureau failed to follow all statutorily listed methods and instead focused on the property owner's failure to update her registered address. Order of the trial court reversed.
Defendant sought post-trial relief after his conviction on charges of murder and criminal conspiracy to commit murder. The court denied defendant's motion, holding in pertinent part that Commonwealth was properly allowed to amend its information to add the charge of criminal conspiracy on the eve of trial where defendant was afforded the opportunity to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus as a means of challenging the evidence in support of the newly-filed charge.
Lower courts erred in enjoining property owner from posting signs protesting neighbor's allegedly racist behavior where posting the signs constituted pure speech as it was motivated in part by highlighting the community effects of racism, and thus an injunction constituted an impermissible prior restraint on speech. Order of the superior court vacated in part.
Publication Date: 2024-09-06 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Commonwealth Court Judge:Judge Leavitt Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 1498 C.D. 2022
Trial court erred in granting civil forfeiture of defendant's vehicle where Commonwealth presented no evidence that defendant regularly used the vehicle as part of his drug transactions to support finding that the vehicle was an instrumentality of defendant's criminal activity. Order of the trial court reversed.
Publication Date: 2024-09-06 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Stevens Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 1734 EDA 2022
Appellant appealed the trial court's judgment of sentence on his jury conviction of rape and related crimes. The court affirmed, holding in pertinent part that the trial court did not violate appellant's rights by posing three brief questions to his crime victim at trial in order to clarify her responses to a question posed by Commonwealth.