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"
Trial court erred when it held PennEnergy was likely to prevail on the merits regarding its claim that appellant MDS was not a party to the Joint Development Agreement or subject to the JDA's arbitration provision and also erred in granting PennEnergy's motion for preliminary injunction against appellant MDS in action concerning working interests in wellbores. Affirmed and vacated.
Publication Date: 2024-10-04 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge King Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 2977 EDA 2023
Appellant appealed the trial court's judgment of sentence entered on her jury convictions for theft by deception and false swearing. The court affirmed, holding that evidence supported appellant's conviction for theft by deception where appellant failed to disclose her personal business income while receiving Section 8 housing benefits.
Defendant filed an omnibus pretrial motion consisting of a motion to suppress evidence derived from a motor vehicle stop and a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court granted the motion and the petition, holding that a state trooper lacked reasonable suspicion to pull over defendant for driving under the influence where a dash cam recording showed that the tires on defendant's vehicle momentarily touched his traffic lane's center line and fog line on several occasions, but without crossing over the lines.
Defendants, a city and its mayor, moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding defendants' regulatory scheme governing the hosting of public events. The court denied the motion, holding that plaintiffs' assertions regarding defendants' indecipherably opaque and unsubstantiated permitting requirements plausibly alleged First Amendment violations regarding use of a public park, marching in streets, and placing banners on city-controlled utility poles.
Defendant moved to amend his pro se petition to open judgment. The court denied the motion where defendant, after obtaining counsel, offered no new arguments beyond those already considered and rejected by a prior court which had denied his petition in the interim.
Appellants appealed the court's orders finding them in contempt and awarding appellees compensatory and coercive sanctions. The court concluded that its orders should be affirmed where appellants explicitly and repeatedly violated an agreed and stipulated order regarding arbitration between the parties and continued to defy the court while failing to provide complete discovery regarding the amount of sanctions to be imposed.
Publication Date: 2024-10-04 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Dubow Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 355 WDA 2024
Appellant appealed the trial court's judgment of sentence entered on his convictions for driving under the influence and other crimes. The court affirmed, holding that appellant was properly ordered to serve sentence on his fifth DUI conviction consecutively to his other DUI sentences pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804(c.2).
In its § 1925(a) opinion, the court explained that the Superior Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal of its finding in favor of cross-appellant and against appellant that was contained in a January 23, 2024, order that was received on January 25, 2024, but not entered as a judgment on the docket. The only final order in this case that would be amenable to appeal was the court's May 24, 2024, order denying appellant and cross-appellant's post-trial motions and entering judgment on the docket for which the deadline to file a timely
Trial court erred in granting defendant's motion that effectively was a second summary judgment motion where defendant had presented no new evidence to eliminate any genuine issues of material fact regarding defendant's alleged failure to maintain corporate formalities between itself and its subsidiary. Order of the trial court vacated, case remanded.