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"
Former attorney general was entitled to qualified immunity on some of the counts alleging §1983 violations and first amendment retaliation and not on others because harm to reputation alone was not a basis for a claim under §1983 and there was no clearly established constitutional violation when one public official called a former public official a derogatory or defamatory term but threats to harm plaintiffs constituted a violation of a clearly established right. Motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part.
Court granted defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs action alleging breach of warranties, negligent misrepresentation and unjust en-richment over the safety equipment in her used car purchase because plaintiff did not allege a single actual misrepresentation made by car manufacturer that she justifiably relied on or any allegation as to any express warranty she saw, heard and relied on and her implied warranty claims failed on statute of limitations grounds. Motion granted.
Arbitration clause concerning one parcel of property could subject other intertwined properties to arbitration as well, where adjudication of all claims in one forum was preferred to avoid conflicting or duplicative results or awards. Order of the trial court reversed.
A zoning officer properly concluded that a proposed bulk water transfer station in a conservation zone was not a valid accessory use under the zoning ordinance. Reversed.
Plaintiffs were not entitled to a new trial based on the jurys failure to find causation, even though it found the defendant driver negligent, because it was possible for the jury to determine that defendant was negligent but that his negligence was not the factual cause of a fatal accident. The court denied plaintiffs post-trial motions for a new trial.
The amount of legal fees plaintiff sought in this successful mortgage foreclosure action was under 10 percent of the unpaid principal balance due, but the court was unable to determine whether the amount sought was reasonable because plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence describing the legal services provided. The court denied in part plaintiffs post-trial motion for relief.
Common pleas did not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board in holding that board abused its discretion in denying an application for a special exception because the only evidence in the record supported granting the special exception. Affirmed.
Publication Date: 2018-04-10 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Stevens Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0419
Commonwealth permitted to cross-examine defendant on admission of guilty and prior convictions where defendant opened the door by denying guilty and asserting evidence of his good character through his present non-use of controlled substances. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Publication Date: 2018-04-10 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Dubow Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0415
Defendant suffered per se prejudice due to trial counsels failure to ascertain that he needed a translator to understand the criminal proceedings and counsels failure to object when the trial court proceeded without a translator. The appellate court affirmed a trial court order granting defendant a new trial.
PRPA evidentiary privilege did not apply where entity was not a professional health care provider, and where performance review was not conducted by hospitals established peer review committee. Order of the superior court affirmed.