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"
Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's employment discrimination complaint. The court granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion, concluding in pertinent part that plaintiff stated a claim for sexual orientation discrimination in violation of federal and state law, but failed to allege claims for discrimination on the basis of sex or disability.
Plaintiffs moved for approval of the settlement in plaintiffs' class action asserting defendant violated Pennsylvania law by using deficient disclosure notices and practices in repossessing plaintiffs' vehicles and court found the Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(2) and Girsh factors supported the settlement, the distribution was fair, reasonable and adequate as was the attorney fee and named plaintiff incentive awards. Motion granted.
The court filed a §1925(a) opinion urging the denial of defendant's post-trial motion of the court's order finding defendant liable for breaching an exclusive requirements contract.
Court vacated commonwealth court's order dismissing appellant's petition and its motion for summary relief in its action seeking to have its elders covered by the clergyman privilege as to mandatory reporting of child sex abuse, because commonwealth court's determinations that appellant did not have standing and that a grant of declaratory relief would not terminate the controversy violated the coordinate jurisdiction rule. Reversed.
The court, in a §1925(a) opinion, provided justification for its award of summary judgment to Fannie Mae and a judgment for possession after an ejectment proceeding that followed a residential foreclosure case.
Respondents filed preliminary objections to claimant's mechanic's lien. The court sustained the majority of respondents' preliminary objections, including their preliminary objection that claimant's claim was not timely filed, and dismissed the claim.
District court erred in excluding government's video and photo evidence in child pornography case in favor of a stipulated written description of the evidence and court found district court overestimated the extent to which the written descriptions reduced the exhibits' probative value under Rule 403, it was far from "obvious" that the potentially cumulative nature of the exhibits substantially outweighed the probative value of admitting any of the exhibits and district court erred in not viewing the exhibits before ruling. Vacated an
Publication Date: 2024-03-01 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Commonwealth Court Judge:Per Curiam Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 497 M.D. 2018
Petitioner indisputably received sufficient post-deduction due process and Department of Corrections was entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law in petitioner's action asserting deprivation of due process in DOC's deduction of court ordered costs from his inmate account. Petition dismissed.
The court filed a §1925(a) opinion urging the Superior Court to affirm its order confirming an arbitration award in favor of defendants and denying plaintiff's cross petition to vacate the award in a case in which defendants sought to recover attorneys' fees owed it by plaintiff.
Plaintiffs appealed the court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in plaintiffs' actions for legal malpractice and breach of contract. The court explained that it granted defendants' motions in the consolidated actions where plaintiffs failed to show the existence of a contract or attorney-client relationship between the pertinent parties in a multi-party dispute about negligent handling of a workers' compensation claim.