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 reversed the decree of the orphans court denying appellant's petition seeking specific performance of an agreement for the sale of real estate with a beneficiary of an estate.
Defendant bank appealed the court's denial of its preliminary objection seeking contractual arbitration of plaintiff's class action suit challenging defendant's overdraft and insufficient fund fees. The court concluded that its order should be affirmed where plaintiff, as a customer of a bank that was subsequently acquired by defendant, never assented to the addition of an arbitration provision and class action waiver to her deposit account agreement.
In this § 1925(a) opinion, the court justified its ruling denying appellant's petition to set aside a tax sale of his property and granting a judgment of possession to Jessica Poltavskiy and urged the Commonwealth Court to affirm because appellant received adequate notice of the sale after two previous upset tax sales were the subject of notice by both posting and personal service.
Publication Date: 2024-08-02 Practice Area:Family Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Stabile Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 502 EDA 2023
Trial court erred in appointing GAL for an indefinite period in response to petition for appointment of guardian of the person and estate, without making a finding of incapacity. Order of the trial court vacated.
Plaintiff failed to plead a concrete injury from information collected by tracking software in promotional emails where the information was not disseminated to third parties and was not the type of information that would constitute a misappropriation of image or invasion of privacy. Defendant's motion to dismiss granted.
In a § 1925(a) opinion, the court urged the Superior Court to affirm its four orders declaring that respondent's property was abandoned and blighted under Act 135, 62 Pa. C.S. § 1101, and appointing petitioner's chosen conservator to remediate the property when respondent's interlocutory appeal was filed without authorization and when he failed to provide the court with an adequate statement of errors complained of on appeal under §1925(b).
Plaintiff and defendant cross-appealed the trial court's judgment on a jury verdict in plaintiff's action for personal injury. The court concluded that its judgment should be affirmed where, in pertinent part, it properly declined to reduce the jury's verdict for plaintiff's medical expenses pursuant to Act 6's cost containment provision because plaintiff's expenses were incurred for surgery outside Pennsylvania by a provider who was not a licensed provider in the Commonwealth.
Publication Date: 2024-08-02 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Supreme Court Judge:Justice Brobson Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 23 EAP 2023
Appellant challenged the Superior Court's decision that he had forfeited his right to appeal the admissibility of prior conviction evidence at trial after he preemptively introduced the evidence himself. The court reversed and remanded with instructions, holding that a defendant who was unsuccessful in excluding prior conviction evidence via a motion in limine at trial may challenge the trial court's admissibility ruling on appeal after preemptively introducing that evidence at trial.
Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's defamation claim for statements made at an industry conference and court found that although plaintiff was not a "limited public figure" and did not need to plead allegations that could lead to an inference that defendant acted with "actual malice"and, as a private figure who was bringing a defamation per se claim, did not need to plead facts that would support a finding of "special harm"plaintiff still needed to plead allegations that would support a finding of general damages. Motion granted.