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 stay plaintiffs suit, that alleged overriding royalty interest payments were due for gas and oil exploitation, pending arbitration was denied because, while the underlying lease had an arbitration clause, the assignment of the lease interests had no such provision and there was no evidence that the parties intended to incorporate the lease provision into the assignment. Motion denied.
The wall that separated the parties adjoining properties was a party wall in which plaintiff had an ownership interest, even though the original party wall uses were no longer applicable due to the demolition of one of the attached buildings. The appellate court recommended affirmance of its permanent injunction order.
Publication Date: 2018-04-10 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Stevens Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0418
PCRA petitioner correctly dismissed where issues already raised and litigated on direct appeal. Order of the PCRA court affirmed.
Publication Date: 2018-04-10 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Bender Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0416
The evidence was sufficient to support defendants conviction on charges of theft by unlawful taking in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. §3921(a) and related offenses where he spent a funeral honor guards money on personal items such as furniture and country club memberships. The appellate court affirmed a trial court order denying defendant relief.
Unemployment compensation board of review properly held that claimant was ineligible for benefits due to willful misconduct because he took 24 hours to report his arrest even though he knew employers policy required it to be reported immediately. Affirmed.
An arbitrator erred in concluding that he had authority to decide the arbitrability of this case, involving the non-promotion of a City of Philadelphia police officer, since the case he relied upon for authority was not binding and neither the applicable collective bargaining agreement nor Act 111 gave him such authority. The court reversed and remanded on other grounds.
District court properly found that appellant taxicab owners and associations failed to allege any of the elements for a claim for attempted monopolization under §2 of the Sherman act and failed to allege antirust standing in their action against Uber because appellants own pleadings showed that Ubers entry into the market increased the number of vehicles-for-hire available to consumers, thus increasing competition and they never demonstrated specific intent to monopolize. Affirmed.
Defendants pursued conservatorship of plaintiffs vacant property without probable cause and for an improper purpose, so the court affirmed the judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the subsequent proceeding for wrongful use of civil proceedings.
Commonwealth Court properly held that the union differentials received by police officers while on union leave were included in retirement benefit calculations and that Kirsch v. Public School Employees Retirement Bd., 985 A. 2d 671, did not apply due to the differing definitions of compensation in the applicable statutes. Affirmed.
Plaintiff was not entitled to set aside a sheriffs sale due to a clerical error in failing to include one parcel of real property in the sale, because the sheriff had authority to sell the property and any error was solely attributable to plaintiff.