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"
The court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment in a case alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act in the termination of a key employee because genuine disputes of material fact of whether the termination was caused by business reasons or as retaliation for taking FMLA leave would have to be resolved by a jury.
The court affirmed the trial court's order that an employee could bring an action for liquidated damages under the Wage Payment and Collection Law, 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 260.1-260.45, regardless of whether the employer has paid all outstanding wages by the time legal action commenced.
Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's putative telemarketing class action claims. The court granted the motion, dismissing plaintiff's claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act with prejudice where plaintiff alleged that the numbers dialed by defendant's auto dialer system originated from a pre-produced list that was not randomly or sequentially generated, with the result that the complaint failed to allege that defendant's system qualified as an automatic telephone dialing system under the Act.
DOC was not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established that prisoners with known severe mental illness could not be held in prolonged solitary confinement due to the harm to mental health caused by such confinement. Order of the district court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part.
The court overruled defendant's preliminary objections to the fourth amended complaint in this case involving an allegation by one attorney against another attorney of cyberstalking and threatened violence by email, and ordered the defendant to file an answer.
Publication Date: 2024-10-11 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Bender Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 824 WDA 2022
Appellant's judgment of sentence for aggravated assault, person not to possess a firearm, carrying a firearm without a license, and recklessly endangering another person was affirmed.
Commonwealth appealed the trial court's order granting appellee's motion to suppress. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred in suppressing evidence derived from a traffic stop conducted by a police officer acting outside his primary jurisdiction where a township's technical violation of the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act did not invalidate the officer's attempt to uphold the rule of law in good faith in pulling over an inebriated driver.
Publication Date: 2024-10-11 Practice Area:Family Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Murray Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 211 WDA 2024
Trial court correctly determined that grounds for divorce had not been established before spouse's death where spouse died less than 20 days after filing an affidavit establishing grounds for divorce and the other spouse did not affirmatively admit the allegations in the affidavit. Order of the trial court affirmed.
Appellants appealed the trial court's denial of their motions for summary judgment. The court affirmed, holding in pertinent part that property owners stated Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act damages claims where their counsel had paid for environmental testing costs to determine the presence and extent of hazardous contamination caused by a metal refinery owned by defendants' predecessor. The court held further that the HSCA did not preclude plaintiffs from seeking recovery of future environmental contamination response costs.
Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that plaintiffs adequately pled a breach of contract claim where they alleged they were wrongfully denied commissions under their employer's 2023 contractual incentive plan. The court held further, however, that where plaintiffs successfully pled a claim for breach of contract, they could not state claims for promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment.