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"
Plaintiff, a Texas state prisoner and Sunni Muslim, appealed the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants on his claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the Establishment Clause.
The parties' dispute centered on an exclusivity agreement from 2011, under which defendant was to manufacture certain products exclusively for PilePro.
Appellants brought suit against appellee city under the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Texas Constitution alleging that the city's development plan for Brackenridge Park prevented them from performing ceremonies essential to their religious practice.
In February 2022, the attorney general issued an opinion concluding that dispensing certain drugs to children with gender dysphoria could constitute child abuse as defined by the Texas Family Code and appellants, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services and its commissioner, took certain actions in response.
Appellant was convicted by a jury in four cases of aggravated robbery and, in one case, burglary of a habitation with intent to commit robbery and impersonating a public servant.
Appellant appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of appellees, challenging the dismissal of his breach of contract claim related to severance benefits after his resignation, which he argued was due to a material reduction in his duties.
The Department of Family and Protective Services sought termination of father's parental rights to his three-year-old daughter and one-year-old twins under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (P).