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"
Petitioner nonprofit Pennsylvania corporation and public charity sought the court's approval of an agreement to transfer its assets to a new entity. The court denied the petition without prejudice where petitioner failed to aver that the separate existence of a trust solely for charitable purposes would result in administrative expense or other burdens unreasonably out of proportion to the trust's charitable benefits.
The parties filed competing motions regarding plaintiff's authority to conduct discovery regarding defendants' alleged violations of consumer protection laws which were unknown to plaintiff when it filed suit or which arose afterward. The court concluded plaintiff could conduct discovery regarding unknown alleged violations for the five years preceding its complaint, and regarding alleged violations that arose afterward.
Defendant appealed the trial court's judgment of sentence imposing a life term on defendant's jury conviction for murder and related crimes. The court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not violate defendant's right to remain silent by directing defendant to remove nonprescription eyeglasses that defendant wore during his jury trial.
Publication Date: 2024-04-12 Practice Area:Family Law Industry: Court:Commonwealth Court Judge:Judge Wojcik Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 739 C.D. 2022
Court quashed appeal denying access to purportedly privileged information in child abuse investigation, where denial of discovery motion was not a collateral order as relief would not be irrevocably lost if review were postponed until resolution of the expunction appeal. Appeal quashed.
Publication Date: 2024-04-12 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Stevens Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 942 MDA 2023
Appellant appealed his sentence after a jury found him guilty of multiple counts relating to the sexual abuse of the victims, his minor children. Sentence affirmed.
Publication Date: 2024-04-12 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Panella Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 354 EDA 2023
The court affirmed appellant's judgment of sentence following his conviction for person prohibited from possessing a firearm in violation of 18 Pa. C.S A. §6105(a)(1) against a challenge that §6105 is unconstitutional in the wake of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).
Court dismissed prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim where it amounted to a mere disagreement over the course of treatment for vaccine side effects, and there was no allegation that medical staff denied reasonable requests for treatment. Defendants' motion to dismiss granted.
State and federal courts erred in denying evidentiary hearings in collateral relief proceedings where defendant alleged that trial counsel's misstatements regarding parole eligibility influenced defendant's decision to plead guilty, constituting a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Order of the district court reversed, case remanded.
Appellant appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration in dispute over teacher's employment and court found the record was inadequate and trial court erroneously resolved a question of fact. Vacated and remanded.
Appellants argued district court erred in holding the Materiality Provision applied to the Pennsylvania law that required a voter to date a mail-in ballot and court found the Materiality Provision was concerned only with the process of determining a voter's eligibility to cast a ballot and the date requirement for casting a mail-in ballot was not covered and did not violate the Materiality Provision. Reversed.