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"
Defendants motion to suppress was denied because the addition of information about a dismissed FEC investigation would not have altered the probable cause determination as to the search warrant because the affidavit for the warrant alleged criminal violations distinct from the allegations and conduct investigated in the FEC decision. Motion denied.
The commission erred as a matter of law in addressing the merits of horse owners appeal after already concluding that the stewards did not abuse their discretion in refusing to disqualify the wining horse because the commission abused its discretion and should have ended its inquiry when it determined that the stewards properly exercised their discretion. Reversed.
The court allowed the defendant county to remove three hazardous trees from plaintiffs property under its police power and denied plaintiff an injunction preventing the county from doing so as she failed to demonstrate that an injunction would not substantially harm other interested parties. The trial court recommended affirmance of its order.
Publication Date: 2018-04-24 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Olson Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0474
An arresting officers testimony that he thought defendants driving was dangerous and there could have been an accident was sufficient to establish probable cause to stop defendant for driving too closely in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. §3310(a), since an officers observations, standing alone, are legally sufficient to stop a vehicle for violating §3310(a). The appellate court affirmed defendants convictions.
Claimants rights to seek occupational disease related medical benefits for the bladder cancer he suffered due to exposure to carcinogens while working as a firefighter were not extinguished by the operation of the pre-Act 46, 300-week statute of repose in §301(c)(2) of the Workers Compensation Act. The court vacated and remanded.
Pursuant to the requirements of §516 of Pennsylvanias Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act, plaintiffs raised an issue of material fact as to whether a jury might find that the individual defendants were acting as ostensible agents of the defendant hospital when they provided plaintiffs with treatment. The court denied in part the hospitals motion for partial summary judgment.
Hearing officer erroneously treated the legal issue of when an examination constituted a significant and separately identifiable service as a factual issue, in providers action seeking to be paid for office visits as well as for the treatment provided to workers compensation claimant. Vacated and remanded.
Imposition of a preliminary injunction was appropriate where defendants were acting unreasonably by subjecting plaintiffs to excessive noise. The courts order set forth specific times during which defendants were not allowed to engage in certain activities, to enable plaintiffs to have the peaceful enjoyment of their property.
In this criminal proceeding involving fraternity hazing, the court concluded that state hazing laws were constitutional. Also, the trial court properly precluded testimony by defendants expert witness regarding the standard of care.
Court denied stores motion for summary judgment in slip and fall case after plaintiff lifted a shoe off a display and the display pedestal moved and caused plaintiff to fall because a reasonable jury could find that the display involved an unreasonable risk of harm to invitees. Motion denied.