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"
While decedent was a paraplegic restricted to a wheelchair at the time of his death, the evidence established that he was able to care for himself and, thus, he was not a dependent child for purposes of the estate forfeiture statute applicable to non-supporting parents. The court recommended affirmance of the denial of a petition for forfeiture of father's share of his adult child's estate.
Publication Date: 2018-07-03 Practice Area:Family Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Ott Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0795
Trial court abused its discretion in changing child's placement goal to adoption and in involuntarily terminating father's parental rights because the goal change occurred when child had been in placement less than the statutory 15-22 months and omitted any findings as to father's compliance and testimony demonstrated that the causes of father's parental incapacity could be removed. Vacated and remanded.
Court granted employer's motion to dismiss plaintiff's disability discrimination claims because plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination but denied summary judgment as to plaintiff's FMLA retaliation claim. Motion granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2018-07-03 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Stevens Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0786
PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel was dismissed where defendant failed to establish that trial counsel was or should have been aware of evidence counsel allegedly failed to investigate. Order of the trial court affirmed.
Trial court properly vacated a structure's historic designation because city council never voted on the issue and the code required the af-firmative vote of six members of city council if the structure's owner objected to the designation, which in this case it did, and city's assertion that the "deemed approval" provision prevailed as the more recently enacted provision failed because both provisions were enacted in the same ordinance. Affirmed.
Trial court properly found radiologist and hospital liable for death of an elderly patient, where a feeding tube was improperly inserted and the X-ray that checked the placement of the tube took an image of the incorrect part of his body and was misread by the radiologist, because plaintiff's expert's testimony did not exceed the scope of his report, the corporate negligence claim was not against the weight of the evidence and the damages award was not excessive. Affirmed.
In this pelvic mesh litigation, the court had personal jurisdiction over cases involving non-Pennsylvania plaintiffs whose devices were made with mesh produced by a Pennsylvania company. The court's exercise of specific personal jurisdiction comported with due process requirements.
The trial court requested that the appellate court remand this discovery matter for an evidentiary hearing to address whether the requested documents were protected under the peer review privilege.
The attorney-client privilege did not bar the court from unsealing certain documents and testimony defendants' counsel gave before a grand jury where the information had already been disseminated to the public and, thus, could not be resealed. The appellate court reversed in part and remanded for certain records to be unsealed.
The denial of plaintiff's claim for unemployment benefits was not determinative of her status as either an employee or independent contractor where the denial was due to her failure to meet wage requirements during a specific period and failure to file a timely appeal. The court denied defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.