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"
Personal injury plaintiff appealed the trial court's order sustaining defendant's preliminary objection as to venue and transferring the action to another county. The court concluded that the Superior Court should reverse the court's venue order where plaintiff alleged claims against a corporation that was a successor-in-interest to a company which allegedly designed, manufactured and sold defective equipment in the county in which plaintiff filed suit.
Appellant appealed the trial court's judgment of sentence of life imprisonment after his jury conviction for his role in a scheme to commit murder-for-hire. The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting Commonwealth's Google GPS location data evidence where the data did not constitute hearsay and was properly admissible as self-authenticating business records.
The court affirmed the order granting appellee's motion for judgment on the pleadings in a wrongful termination case on the grounds that appellant's claim was subject to a two-year statute of limitations under 42 Pa. C.S.A. §5501(7).
Court dismissed product liability claims against various retailers where complaint specifically alleged the retailer from which the product was obtained. Defendants' motions to dismiss granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2024-05-31 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Lazarus Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 554 MDA 2023
Commonwealth appealed from the trial court's order denying its request to present certain evidence in appellee's trial on charges that he murdered his wife. The court reversed in part, holding that the trial court erred in precluding appellant's admission of probative accident reconstruction evidence and competent expert witness evidence regarding the victim's manner of death by drowning.
Petitioners sought permission to appeal the district court's order granting class certification in plaintiff's action alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 concerning a drug manufacturer's shares that were dual listed on a domestic and an international stock exchange. The court denied the petition, holding that discretionary interlocutory review was not appropriate where petitioners challenged the reach of Rule 10(b) regarding dual-listed securities, which ultimately was a merits rather than a class-certification
The court conducted a non-jury trial in plaintiff homebuyer's action for fraud and related claims against defendant sellers. The court found in favor of plaintiff, holding that defendants, an experienced home renovation contractor and his company, violated the Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law and committed common law fraud by intentionally failing to disclose that the renovated home was previously uninhabitable due to widespread contamination from animal waste.
Appellant challenged township's decision granting a conditional use in favor of a real property developer. The court held in pertinent part that township board did not err in granting the conditional use approval where it concluded the developer's proposed resort and shopping center, although physically separated, were sufficiently integrated with the use and character of township's overall resort overlay district development area.
Fee review applications were properly denied as prescriptions issued by physicians and filled by a pharmacy that the physicians held an interest in constituted an improper self-referral. Order of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation affirmed.