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 sustained defendant's preliminary objection to plaintiff's failure to attach sufficient account statements to its complaint but overruled defendant's objection that plaintiff did not attach a signed cardholder account agreement to its complaint.
Trial court lacked authority to impose conditions of use on a deemed approval of a zoning variance application, as a deemed approval allowed for nonconforming uses. Order of the trial court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Personal injury plaintiff appealed the court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant. The court concluded that its order should be affirmed where plaintiff proffered no evidence that defendant breached its duty of care when it repaired a restaurant's refrigerator door that allegedly came open and struck plaintiff in the leg.
The court explained its decision to extinguish some claims for unpaid taxes and not others in the sale of property by conservators pursuant to 68 P.S. §1109 of the Pennsylvania Abandoned and Blighted Property Conservatorship Act.
Appellant appealed the trial court's order granting appellees' motions and quashing its appeal of a land development decision as untimely with no applicable exception to the 30-day appeal period. The court affirmed where appellant failed to file a timely appeal despite being aware of the relevant ordinances and review process and that appellee property owner's development application had been approved by appellee borough council.
Publication Date: 2024-06-21 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Stevens Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 1393 WDA 2023
Court properly denied appellant's request for a refund of unremitted restitution owed to appellant's mother, as doing so would run contrary to the rehabilitative purposes of restitution and run afoul of equitable principles and public policy. Order of the trial court affirmed.
Publication Date: 2024-06-21 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Stabile Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 2229 EDA 2022
Appellant appealed the trial court's denial of his petition to expunge records of domestic violence charges brought against him in 2008. The court reversed and remanded with directions, holding that expungement was warranted where thirteen years had passed since appellant's charges were nolle prossed, the allegations in the charges remained unsubstantiated hearsay, and appellant, now a senior citizen, had had no further interactions with the criminal justice system.
Disability discrimination and retaliation claims were adequately pled where termination that occurred within two weeks of disability accommodation and Family and Medical Leave Act leave requests supported an inference of a causal connection. Defendant's motion to dismiss denied.
Zoning board erred in denying applicant's requested multi-family use variances for buildings in a single-family residential district that had been used as multi-family dwellings for more than 50 years and court found board's findings and conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence and it abused its discretion in denying the variances. Reversed.
Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's Pennsylvania Wiretap Act and common law invasion of privacy complaint asserting defendant's website recorded keystrokes and personal information without notice and court found it had jurisdiction over defendant, plaintiff had standing, defendant's acts were arguably covered by the PWA but plaintiff failed to show harm as required for the common law invasion of privacy claim. Motion granted in part and denied in part.