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"
In a § 1925(a) opinion, the court defended its decision to deny defendant's motion for new trial and to permit testimony of an expert witness for plaintiff.
Plaintiff moved to mold a jury verdict to include pre-judgment interest. The court denied the motion where uncertainties regarding defendants' ultimate liability to plaintiff precluded a pre-judgment interest award, and where no such award was required in the interests of justice.
Defendant petitioned to open default judgment. The court denied the motion, holding defendant failed to establish excusable negligence for its failure to timely answer plaintiff's complaint where it claimed only that it suffered difficulties in forwarding process to Pennsylvania counsel after being served out of state.
Applicant appealed from the trial court's order that affirmed the decision of a township zoning hearing board denying a special exception for a private recreational facility on applicant's property. The court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the denial of applicant's special exception use application where applicant failed to demonstrate that use of its property as a gun range was compatible, in nature and intensity, with the adjoining residential developments and the character of the zoning district and neighborhood where
The court denied defendants' pre-verdict motions for judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a) and their post-verdict motions for judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c) and motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33.
Court declined to sanction defendant by striking its answer and defenses where failure to comply with discovery obligations did not prejudice plaintiff's prosecution of their claim against the co-defendant who had participated in discovery, and where the discovery deadline had not yet expired and defendant appeared to understand its obligation to produce responsive discovery. Plaintiff's motion for sanction granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2024-07-05 Practice Area:Family Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Panella Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 1715 EDA 2023
Appellant appealed the trial court's order granting appellee's protection from abuse petition. The court affirmed, holding that sufficient evidence supported the trial court's order where appellant, as appellee's former boyfriend, caused appellee to fear for her safety after he refused to end contact with her and entered her apartment with a key that he was not supposed to have.
Court declined to dismiss whistleblower and First Amendment retaliation claims where employee adequately alleged that defendants launched an unwarranted investigation and then forced her resignation following her complaints of unfair or unlawful business practices. Defendants' motion to dismiss denied in part and granted in part.
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Make Rule Absolute after obtaining a Rule per curiam requiring defendant's response to plaintiff's petition for special relief. The court denied the motion absent record evidence of original service of process on defendant, defendant's waiver of the right to proper service, or his consent to the court's jurisdiction.