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"
Court declined to apply jury waiver to claims and counterclaims not sufficiently related to parties' agreement containing the waiver provision or where interpreting the agreement was not necessary to resolve those claims/counterclaims. Plaintiff's motion to strike jury waiver granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2024-08-09 Practice Area:Labor Law Industry: Court:Commonwealth Court Judge:Judge Covey Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 503 C.D. 2021
Workers' compensation judge erred in reinstating total disability benefits as of the date of court decision striking down impairment rating evaluation provisions rather than the date of claimant's reinstatement petition where the court decision was not given full retroactivity. Order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board vacated and remanded in part and reversed in part.
The court vacated the district court's judgment upholding the termination of appellant's benefits under a long-term disability plan because the termination of his benefits was not based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
Plaintiff sued defendant on claims arising from a lease/purchase agreement concerning truck trailers. The court found against plaintiff, which had breached the agreement, and ruled in favor of defendant on its counterclaim, awarding $20,000 in damages.
Tenant appealed the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment in favor of landlord in a commercial lease dispute over unpaid rent and related charges. The court affirmed, holding that the mandatory closure of non-essential businesses for 77 days during the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic did not support the commercial tenant's assertion of the doctrine of frustration of purpose where the tenant afterward voluntarily elected not to return to the leased premises for the remainder of its lease term.
Court dismissed officer's constitutional claims arising from prosecutors' disclosure of the officer's Internal Affairs Division file where prosecutors acted under good faith interpretation of their Brady obligations to disclose impeachment evidence for prosecution witnesses. Order of the district court affirmed.
Court declined to dismiss Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law claim arising from defective/dangerous product where retailer allegedly misrepresented the origin and safety of the products, and consumer suffered ascertainable loss where she would not have purchased the product if correctly informed. Defendant's motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part.
Worker's Compensation Appeal Board decision granting employer's modification petitions and denying claimant's request for litigation cost reimbursement affirmed. Board's order denying the employer's request to set aside the stipulation of facts reversed.
Plaintiffs' motion to amend their second amended personal injury complaint was denied where plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to satisfy the state-created danger doctrine exception to § 1983's lack of applicability to tort claims against the state.
Defendant property owner appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff township in its action for enforcement of a zoning violation notice arising from defendant's use of his property for short-term rentals. The court concluded that where defendant had not appealed an adverse ruling by Township's Zoning Hearing Board as to his prohibited use of the property, the sole question in Township's case was whether defendant's prohibited activity was continuing, and not whether defendant's use of his property fell within another au