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"
Commonwealth could introduce evidence of deteriorating condition of elderly victims home to refute defendants denial of criminal intent in spending the assets of the victims estate. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Publication Date: 2018-02-20 Practice Area:Family Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Olson Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0176
Trial court erred in holding grandmother in contempt for failing to abide by its custody order because the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case, where the New York court that issued the original custody decree asserted exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the matter and trial court thus lacked the authority to find grandmother in contempt. Reversed.
Publication Date: 2018-02-20 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Supreme Court Judge:Justice Todd Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0169
Death sentence vacated where appellant presented sufficient evidence at pretrial hearing to support finding that he was intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for death penalty. Judgment of sentence of death vacated, life sentence imposed.
Publication Date: 2018-02-20 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Elliott Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0163
Contrary to defendants assertion, petitioner was not required to demonstrate that defendant committed criminal harassment to secure a protection from intimidation order in accordance with the Protection of Victims of Sexual Violence or Intimidation Act. The appellate court affirmed the trial courts order.
Landlords were required to return all of their tenants personal property, because prior Pennsylvania case law held that the distraint provision of the Landlord and Tenancy Act was unconstitutional.
The trial court properly dismissed plaintiffs Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim on the basis that he did not suffer any injury, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, where he sought compensatory and punitive damages rather than injunctive relief to prevent future harm. The appellate court affirmed the trial courts dismissal order.
Plaintiffs met the requirements for certification of a rule 23 class action in their case asserting that home health care agencies failed to properly pay their workers overtime under the FLSA and the PMWA. Motion granted.
Anti-distribution provision imposed by gaming control board against principal licensee following dismissal of perjury charges arising from license application also applied to licensees businesses and precluded them from doing business with licensees casino. Order of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board affirmed.
The court overruled DOCs preliminary objections to petitioners claim that he was removed from his prison work position without his due process rights because petitioners actions violated at least two DOC policies and his misconduct was the impetus for his removal from his job and while the DOC had the discretion as to whether or not to issue a DC-141 misconduct report, it could not use the removal pro-cedures for removal in situations other than misconduct in DC-ADM 816 §1.M.7 to remove an inmate based on what amounted to work-re
Common pleas court correctly dismissed plaintiffs action alleging wrongful use of civil proceedings and abuse of process in defendants petition to set aside plaintiffs nomination petition for a primary election because under existing case law at the time defendants filed their petition, they had probable cause as a matter of law. Affirmed.