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 appealed respondent's notice of suspension of petitioner's authority to act as an official safety inspection station. The court granted the appeal in part and denied it in part, holding that while respondent's quality assurance officer provided reliable and credible testimony in support of petitioner's inspection violations, he offered no testimony on the matter of improper recordkeeping, and thus respondent failed to meet its burden of proof on that allegation.
Appellant appealed the trial court's order granting specific performance of a partnership agreement's buy-out provision. The court reversed, holding that the spouse of a deceased business partner who was not an original party to a partnership agreement, nor a third-party beneficiary of that agreement, and where the terms of the agreement did not permit assignment of a deceased partner's interest to a non-party could not be permitted to "step into the shoes" of the deceased partner and enforce the partnership agreement.
Defendants were entitled to witness immunity from misappropriation claims where defendants had conducted a forensic examination of software to provide expert testimony in litigation. Defendants' motion to dismiss granted.
Publication Date: 2024-09-27 Practice Area:Family Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge King Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 719 EDA 2024
Minor child's father, pre-adoptive parents, and adoption agency cross-appealed certain of the trial court's orders concerning child's adoption and father's parental rights. The court vacated the trial court's orders denying confirmation of mother's and father's consents to adoption where mother and father neither revoked their consents in writing within thirty days nor petitioned to challenge the validity of their consents on the basis of fraud or duress within sixty days.
Plaintiff sued defendant to recover funds on defendant's alleged credit card debt. The court entered a verdict in favor of defendant, holding that upon trial plaintiff failed to proffer credible evidence sufficient to sustain the allegations of plaintiff's complaint.
Defendant moved for sanctions and plaintiff filed an "emergency" motion to extend in plaintiff's action alleging discrimination on the basis of race, hostile work environment and retaliation and court dismissed plaintiff's complaint as a sanction for plaintiff's failure to respond to discovery requests and continually filing "emergency" motions to extend the deadline to retain new counsel where over 500 days had passed since court granted plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw from the case and plaintiff had failed to respond to dis
Publication Date: 2024-09-27 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Stevens Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 1601 EDA 2023
Commonwealth appealed the trial court's order denying its petition to refile charges against appellee. The court reversed and remanded for trial, holding that Commonwealth's evidence regarding appellee's blood test results, his driving, the accident he caused, and his behavior afterward was sufficient to set out prima facie cases of aggravated assault by vehicle while driving under the influence and aggravated assault by vehicle.
Plaintiff, defendants and intervenors filed cross-motions for summary judgment in plaintiff's suit pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. The court granted plaintiff's motion and denied the motions of defendants and intervenors, holding that defendants and intervenors failed to demonstrate that the disputed documents were confidential commercial information exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 4.
The court affirmed the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County denying and dismissing appellant's objections and petition to vacate the Tax Claim Bureau's private sale of appellant's property.