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"
Court denied defendants summary judgment motion, in plaintiffs action over unpaid lease bonuses for oil and gas leases, because the transactional documents demonstrated that an enforceable contract existed between defendants and landowners and court denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgement to the extent it sought a class-wide contractual breach and the full value of the bonuses as damages. Denied in part and granted in part.
Publication Date: 2018-05-08 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Supreme Court Judge:Justice Wecht Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0539
Police could not effect arrest warrant in home of third-party absent magisterial determination of probable cause to search third-party home. Order of the superior court reversed, case remanded.
Publication Date: 2018-05-08 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Kunselman Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0537
Trial court violated due process by mass-sentencing a group of unrelated defendants for indirect criminal contempt without determining each defendants financial ability to pay, or offering them opportunity to be heard or assistance of counsel until after sentencing. Order of the trial court vacated.
Publication Date: 2018-05-08 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Dubow Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0536
Motion to pierce Rape Shield Law properly granted where proffered evidence merely alleged existence of victims other sexual relationship, which alone was insufficient to establish logical nexus with victims alleged motive to fabricate. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
A criminal defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel prior to making statements to police, and a search warrant was based on probable cause. The court denied defendants motions to suppress.
Trial court properly denied appellants request for a new trial or JNOV after the jury found that other drivers negligence in rear-end accident was not was not a factual cause of any harm because appellant waived his JNOV issue since he failed to move for a directed verdict, his counsel withdrew his request for a binding jury instruction and appellants concealing his pre-accident chiropractor visits from his physicians presented the jury with an issue of credibility. Affirmed.
Commonwealth court erred in affirming trial courts conclusion that school superintendent was entitled to mandamus relief in her action seeking reinstatement because superintendent negotiated the right to resign without notice and her filing a federal action asserting constructive discharge implied that she considered her employment terminated before the school board voted to accept her resignation. Reversed.
Petitioner was not entitled to relief on appeal from the suspension of his personal and commercial driving licenses since post-Birchfield v. North Dakota decisions supported the notion that a licensee is not entitled to hear the consequences of a chemical test he is not asked to submit to by police. The court dismissed petitioners appeal.
Class of one equal protection claim failed where plaintiff failed to establish he was intentionally treated differently from other similarly situated individuals without any rational basis for such different treatment. Defendants motion for summary judgment granted.
In this case of first impression, the appellate court held that while an underlying criminal action remains pending, an appeal from an order deciding a commonwealth forfeiture petition is interlocutory and unappealable if the forfeiture petition relates in any way to the criminal prosecution. The appellate court squashed defendants appeal.