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 concluded that its order affirming appellee zoning hearing board's decision granting property owners' application for a dimensional variance to accommodate a residential "in-law suite" at their home should be affirmed, holding that the record amply supported appellee's conclusion that the requested dimensional variance was the minimum necessary to reasonably accommodate applicants' request without subjecting them to undue hardship.
Amendment allowing new businesses in commercial district to count public parking spaces toward parking requirements was arbitrary and an unconstitutional violation of equal protection where such benefits were not extended to existing businesses, which bore the burden to reduce public parking congestion that benefitted new businesses. Order of the trial court reversed.
Court remanded Social Security disability case for an award of benefits due to the excessive delay in adjudicating claimant's application, caused in part by the ALJ repeating errors on multiple remands. Plaintiff's request for review granted.
Mother appealed the trial court's contempt order requiring her to pay father's attorney fees incurred as a result of the parties' contempt litigation. The court held that it did not abuse its discretion in ordering payment of father's attorney fees where mother repeatedly violated the court's custody orders and committed countless acts of contempt in an attempt to deprive father of visitation and turn the couple's children against him.
This § 1925(a) opinion urged the Superior Court to affirm the court's decision granting summary judgment to defendants in October 2023 in a case in which plaintiffs alleged that defendants made wrongful use of civil proceedings in an earlier case in federal court.
Publication Date: 2024-11-22 Practice Area:Personal Injury Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Sullivan Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 889 EDA 2023
No error by trial court in denying motion for delay damages that lacked mandatory notice language at the beginning of the motion. Judgment of the trial court affirmed.
In this § 1925(a) opinion, the court recommended that appeals taken by both parties from the court's order denying appellant's motion to hold the verdict to $250,000 to comply with the statutory damages cap in 42 Pa. C.S. §8528(b) and denying appellee's post-trial motion seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict and/or a new trial be denied.
In this case which the court certified for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §702(b), plaintiff, the parent and next guardian of C.A., a minor, appealed the court's order sustaining the preliminary objections of defendants to plaintiff's second amended complaint resulting in their dismissal with prejudice. In its § 1925(a) opinion, the court asked that its dismissal order be affirmed.
Jose Soto appealed his conviction for conspiracy to commit bank robbery, two counts of bank robbery, and two counts of using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence.
Sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable where offense level adjustment would not have affected the Guidelines range due to the statutory maximum and district court gave appropriate consideration to aggravating and mitigating factors.