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 government failed to demonstrate that the statutory scheme imposing the same requirements on secondary producers of sexually explicit content as those imposed on the producers of such content was the least restrictive means of protecting child from child pornographers and, thus, failed strict scrutiny as applied to secondary producers such as plaintiffs. The court granted plaintiffs relief in part.
Defendants chose to proceed pro se at their peril, and their unexcused failure to respond to a request for admissions constituted an admission of the facts set forth therein, establishing all the facts necessary to grant summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Board properly found that claimant had a fixed place of work at the time of the automobile accident that injured him, that his employment agreement with employer did not contain provisions for travel, there was no evidence that employer provide or controlled the means of claimant's commute and no exception to the "going and coming" rule applied. Affirmed.
In this slip-and-fall case involving an icy road, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment based on the hills and ridges doctrine, because the record contained evidence of a recent snowfall which caused slippery conditions.
Publication Date: 2018-06-05 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Shogan Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0660
Trial court erred in granting suppression pursuant to Birchfield v. North Dakota where voluntary consent obtained prior to suspect being read implied consent form warning of enhanced criminal penalties for refusal of consent to a blood draw. Order of the trial court reversed, case remanded.
The dismissal of a particular plaintiff's claims as a sanction for discovery violations was an appropriate sanction given the individual's history of dilatoriness and his failure to maintain communications with counsel while serving in the military such that he did not appear for his own deposition, resulting in prejudice to defendant. The court granted defendant's motion for sanctions against a specific plaintiff.
Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' action for negligence, failure to warn, design defect, medical monitoring and property-related and punitive damages after plaintiff discovered his bladder cancer was the result of groundwater contamination by the perfluorochemicals in de-fendants' aqueous film forming foam used for firefighting on a Navy base and the court found that plaintiffs sufficiently pled defendants owed a duty to them, proximate cause and products liability based on common law negligence but not the property-related dama
Neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel barred the applicant's most recent request for a zoning special exception because applicant proceeded under different theories and sought different relief from that it sought in two prior zoning applications. The appellate court reversed on other grounds.
DUI conviction affirmed where testimony that defendant did not operate the vehicle found not credible by trial court sitting as finder of fact. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Publication Date: 2018-06-05 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Platt Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0657
Trial court was not obligated to resentence after vacating "restitution" that was in fact an order to pay costs of prosecution. Order of the trial court affirmed.