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 granted summary judgment to defendant resort on a personal injury claim by plaintiff alleging alleged he contracted a fungal infection after using a hot tub in his room.
After a non-jury trial of a breach of contract claim for a failure to make loan payments, the court found in favor of defendant and dismissed plaintiff's claim, finding there was no documentation in evidence of a loan application or loan agreement with repayment terms signed by the defendant.
Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Hackensack University Medical Center and Hackensack Meridian Health Inc.
Caleb McGillvary filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus, challenging the district court's indefinite administrative closure of his habeas petition.
The court asked the Superior Court to reverse its Nov. 29, 2023 order compelling the production of discovery documents and remand the case for further fact finding, discovery and review.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, sought review of a final determination of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records which concluded that petitioner was not entitled to documents sought from a county pursuant to the Right to Know Law. The court denied the petition for review, holding that petitioner was not entitled to production of criminal investigation material from the investigation that led to his prosecution. The court held further that petitioner was not entitled to production of material in response to requests that sought or would
Publication Date: 2024-08-23 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Kunselman Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 1495 MDA 2023
Appellant appealed the trial court's judgment of sentence on his jury conviction of two counts each of possessing an offensive weapon and possessing a weapon or implement of escape. Appellant argued that the offense of prohibited offensive weapons was a lesser included offense of the crime of weapons or implements of escape. The court affirmed, holding as a matter of first impression that the offenses did not merge for purposes of sentencing.
In this § 1925(a) opinion, the court urged the Commonwealth Court to affirm the court's order denying appellants' appeal and affirming the decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment because appellants failed to present any cognizable legal error with the ZBA's decision.
Court held that a convict completing his sentence on supervised release did not have a second amendment right to possess a firearm and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) was constitutional because early American forfeiture lawswhich required forfeiting property in general and arms in particularyielded the principle that a convict could be disarmed while he completed his sentence and reintegrated into society. Affirmed.