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"
Appellant appealed the trial court's order denying his petition for issuance of an order containing specific factual findings regarding appellant's nephew, which were necessary to petition the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for special immigration juvenile status. The court affirmed, concluding that appellant's nephew did not qualify for SIJS where the trial court did not appoint appellant to serve as nephew's legal custodian, and nephew instead lived with appellant pursuant to a custody agreement with nephew's mother.
Objector appealed the court's order dismissing her land use appeal for lack of standing. The court concluded that the Commonwealth Court lacked appellate jurisdiction because objector's appeal was not timely filed and that in any event, objector lacked standing in the first instance.
In this §1925(a) opinion, the trial court urged the Superior Court to affirm its decision to reconsider the preclusion of the plaintiff's expert witness and removing the nonsuit it granted as a result so that the case could be remanded for a full trial on the merits.
Publication Date: 2024-03-22 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Commonwealth Court Judge:Judge Fizzano Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 134 C.D. 2023
Court vacated parole board's calculation of parole violation maximum date where it was unclear from record of sentencing hearing whether trial court accepted all the terms of defendant's plea bargain allocating credit for pre-sentence confinement between his new county sentence and original state sentence. Order of the parole board vacated and remanded.
Defendant employer moved to dismiss plaintiff's action over his termination and court found plaintiff's retaliation claims under Title VII, § 1981, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act survived summary judgment because genuine disputes of material fact remained as to both causation and pretext and his Wage Payment and Collection Law and unjust enrichment claims were a factual question for a jury. Motion denied.
Defendant staffing agency moved to enforce an electronically executed contractual arbitration agreement in plaintiff employees' action alleging sex and gender-identity discrimination. The court granted the motion and stayed the action pending arbitration where defendant offered evidence that plaintiffs had digitally signed the enforceable arbitration agreement when they were hired, in keeping with defendant's routine onboarding procedure.
Act 111 was constitutional where it merely clarified the guidelines for conducting an impairment rating evaluation after removing language overturned by the supreme court, and did not constitute a special law as it did not treat specific workers differently from other employees entitled to workers' compensation. Order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board affirmed.
Prevailing plaintiff appealed the court's order molding her jury verdict to include delay damages. On remand from the Superior Court, the court re-calculated plaintiff's delay damages and entered its award accordingly.
Cast vote records were the electronic equivalent of the "contents" of a ballot box or voting machine and thus were exempt from public disclosure under the Election Code and constitutional protections for ballot secrecy. Order of the trial court reversed.
School district's alleged failure to train employees to work with students with emotional disorders lacked causal connection to student's harm and thus could not support a substantive due process claim. Defendants' motions to dismiss granted in part and denied in part.