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"
Publication Date: 2024-07-26 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Lazarus Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 30 WDM 2024
Court of Common Pleas did not abuse discretion in revoking bail based on information about the alleged offenses that indicated defendant's mental health status made him a threat to public safety. Order of the trial court affirmed.
Appellants appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of appellees and dismissing with prejudice appellants' action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The court affirmed, holding that appellant's suit was barred on grounds of collateral estoppel where their argument that township had abandoned the public purpose for which it had condemned land had been fully and fairly litigated in earlier proceedings.
Appellant appealed the court's order denying his petition to adopt an adult son. The court concluded that its order should be affirmed where the parties demonstrated no good cause for proceeding with the adoption absent a relinquishment of parental rights by adoptee's father.
Plaintiff sought class certification in his action alleging that defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by faxing unsolicited mass advertisements to healthcare providers. The court denied the motion where plaintiff's evidence failed to establish an ascertainable class because the available fax logs were incomplete and did not reliably reflect what fax numbers successfully received the alleged transmissions.
Appellant Vincent Alexis, a former federal inmate, filed a pro se civil rights Bivens complaint, alleging Eighth Amendment violations due to inadequate medical treatment while he was incarcerated at FCI Fort Dix.
Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the court's order denying her motion for judgment on the pleadings in her action against a former client for breach of the parties' fee agreement. The court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, holding that the former client's factual allegations and admissions established genuine issues of fact that precluded judgment on the pleadings in the attorney's favor.
Petitioners sought review of a final agency order denying their objections to a hearing officer's proposed report, which denied their appeal of a highway occupancy permit issued to a third party. The court affirmed, holding in pertinent part that a petitioner who contested an abutting property owner's highway occupancy permit was not entitled to present administrative hearing evidence regarding alleged traffic safety issues created within a shopping center on its own private property, absent evidence that the issue related to highway
Court found no error in trial court's judgment where property owner failed to present evidence to rebut presumption of validity of city's property assessment and the trial court could credit the city's expert's testimony to find a basis to increase the assessment. Order of the trial court affirmed.
Evidence was sufficient to support willful infringement verdict where evidence pointed to defendant not subjectively believing it could use the subject mark but continuing to do so for over a year after receiving a cease-and-desist letter. Orders of the district court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part.
Trial court properly found drive-in theatre was operating a campground in violation of the zoning ordinance when it allowed patrons to spend the night after watching a movie because the ordinance did not allow any type of camping in the C-1 commercial district, the definition of drive-in theater did not include the operation of a campground and a campground was not an accessory use to a drive-in theater. Affirmed.