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 refused to transfer former sales representatives action seeking commission bonus payments to New Jersey because the Pennsylvania sales representative had a Pennsylvania territory and the sales orders originated in Pennsylvania and court declined to dismiss the breach of contract and wage statute claims because the document defendant relied on was not in evidence but court did dismiss the fraud claim because the alleged duty arose under contract law. Motions denied in part and granted in part.
Plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial based on the jurys nominal pain and suffering award where the jury had a basis for finding that many of her pain and suffering complaints were not credible or were caused by pre-existing conditions. The court recommended affirmance of its order denying plaintiffs motion for post-trial relief.
The plaintiff developer had the unanimous consent of condominium unit owners required by the Pennsylvania Uniform Condominium Act when it allocated a common expense percentage for a specific development building in an amendment to a recorded declaration of condominium. The court recommended affirmance of its order denying defendants counterclaim for delinquent common expenses.
Judgment on the pleadings for FLSA claim denied where plaintiff alleged that tipped employees were required to perform second non-tipped occupations and employer distributed tip pool funds to non-tipped positions. Defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings denied.
Publication Date: 2018-03-27 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Bender Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0322
False ID conviction erroneous where defendant not told by police officers that she was the subject of an official investigation of a violation of the law. Judgment of sentence reversed in part and affirmed in all other parts.
Defendant, a real estate brokerage firm representing both the buyer and seller in dual agency purchase and sale agreement, failed to demonstrate that it was a privy to an integration clause in the real estate sale agreement and, thus, could not rely on the parol evidence rule to bar consideration of certain evidence. The court denied defendants motion for reconsideration of an order denying in part a motion to dismiss.
Insurer was not entitled to intervene in plaintiffs and defendants proposed settlement of plaintiffs Lanham act action and defendants counterclaim because insurer had no protectable interest in the underlying action where insurers request for an equitable lien on the settlement proceeds for the attorney fees it had already paid was not warranted since it had a perfectly adequate remedy at law. Motion denied.
Trial court properly denied TV stations motion to intervene and obtain access to a search warrant and sealing order issued in connection with an investigating grand jury because as a matter of law, no public right of access attached under the common law or the first amendment. Affirmed
The court addressed defendants motions to dismiss plaintiffs claims for breach of warranty, violations of the Magnuson-Moss warranty act, breach of implied fitness, breach of contract, violations of the UTPCPL and fraudulent misrepresentation over a heating and air conditioning unit for their house and found the complaint was sufficiently pled since it named the employees making the promises, the promises and when they were made but determined that the economic loss doctrine barred the fraudulent misrepresentation claims and the gis
In this matter involving two trusts created by a married couple, the court allowed one of their children to intervene in pending proceeding relating to one of the trusts. The court rejected the trustees motion for summary judgment, and it consolidated these two trust proceedings for trial.