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"
Defendant appealed the order for specific performance in action over a real estate sales agreement and court held trial court properly found that a written contract existed and defendant breached it, there was no violation of the statute of frauds and defendant waived his right to arbitration. Affirmed.
The court in a § 1925(a) opinion, asked the Superior Court to affirm the jury's verdict in a wrongful death home health care case awarding plaintiff $42,500 and to affirm the denial of post-trial relief.
Petitioners sought review of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board's order affirming a workers' compensation judge's decision that denied a petition for review of a compensation benefits award. The court affirmed, holding that the workers' compensation judge did not err by considering circumstances, including the timeliness and the manner in which an insurer handled a claim, when denying a corrective amendment to a Notice of Compensation Payable where the issue was the identity of the claimant's employer.
Publication Date: 2024-06-28 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Stevens Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 1019 WDA 2023
Presence of drugs and paraphernalia in bedroom shared by defendant was sufficient evidence to infer constructive possession. Order of the trial court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Publication Date: 2024-06-28 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Supreme Court Judge:Justice McCaffery Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 87 MAP 2023
Superior court erred in requiring Post Conviction Relief Act counsel to submit a merits brief after learning of defendant's intention to assert ineffective assistance claims against PCRA counsel, and should have instead remanded the case to the PCRA court. Order of the superior court reversed and remanded.
Defendant appealed the court's order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in its action for recovery of delinquent mortgage loans. The court concluded that its order should be affirmed where defendant acknowledged the validity of the mortgage loans and, due to a lack of discovery responses, was deemed to have admitted his liability on the defaulted loans, to which he offered no logical or plausible defense.
The court affirmed the trial court's order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff's claims of defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and abuse of process.
Plaintiff seller sued defendant buyer for ejectment from real property after a failed residential home sale. Following a non-jury trial, the court found in favor of plaintiff where defendant moved into the residence without permission despite expiration of the parties' "offer to purchase real estate" without a closing on the property.
Defendant moved for reconsideration of trial court's partial summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff's employment action and court found the dismissal of a similar action brought by another employee against the same defendant employer was not grounds for reconsideration, was not "new legal authority" and did not support collateral estoppel. Motion denied.
Petitioners sought review of a letter in which respondent Pennsylvania Insurance Department's declined to vacate consent orders entered into by petitioners. The court quashed the appellate petition for review because respondent's letter was not an appealable adjudication.