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 entered an award of negligence damages in favor of plaintiff after he suffered a dog attack and obtained default judgment against the dog's owners. Based upon evidence that included plaintiff's medical history and the opinion testimony of plaintiff's expert medical witness, the court awarded plaintiff some $500,000 for pain and suffering, loss of earnings or earning capacity, and future loss of earnings or earning capacity.
Company's non-consensual use of session replay software to track users' inputs was sufficient to constitute a potential violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act. Defendant's motion to dismiss denied in part and granted in part.
In this § 1925(a) opinion, the court urged the Superior Court to affirm its order resolving all issues raised by the petition of the next-door neighbor for a property to be placed in conservatorship under the Abandoned and Blighted Property Conservatorship Act, 68 P.S. §§1101-1120, following an evidentiary hearing.
Publication Date: 2024-06-21 Practice Area:Family Law Industry: Court:Supreme Court Judge:Justice Dougherty Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 30 MAP 2023
Appellant appealed the Superior Court's order requiring that he pay child support to child's biological father. The court reversed, holding that a deceased mother's paramour, who obtained in loco parentis standing and was awarded partial physical custody of child, had no child support liability where he did not have legal custody and thus was not child's "parent."
Applicants appealed the trial court's denials of their zoning appeals. The court affirmed, holding that appellants were not entitled to a curative amendment to appellee's allegedly exclusionary zoning code where appellants' desired use of their properties for a "transitional living facility" reflected a particular business model rather than a single use.
Appellant property owner appealed the trial court's order granting objectors' land use appeal. The court reversed, holding that owner's parcel was subject to a special city zoning code provision governing corner lots, which ultimately meant the property had no front yard setback requirements in light of the zoning district where it was situated.
Appellant appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant healthcare providers. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, holding that when the record was viewed in appellant's favor as the non-movant, genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether appellees committed gross negligence in evaluating and releasing appellant's deceased brother, who killed himself shortly after expressing suicidal thoughts and seeking mental health treatment.
Defendant appealed the court's order denying her motion for reconsideration of the court's order granting plaintiffs a new trial. The court concluded that its order should be reversed where plaintiffs waived their objection to defendant's medical expert witness by failing to renew their pre-trial motion in limine until after defendant's expert testified at trial.
Publication Date: 2024-06-14 Practice Area:Family Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Panella Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 976 WDA 2023
Trial court correctly dismissed custody complaint for lack of in loco parentis standing where petitioner had not resided with the child for nearly five years and the child's father and sole living parent had custody and objected to visitation with petitioner. Order of the trial court affirmed.