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"
Publication Date: 2024-05-17 Practice Area:Family Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Stabile Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 2248 EDA 2023
The court affirmed the trial court's orders that removed former guardian T.B. as a reunification resource for two minor children, Z.B. and A.B.
Appellant solar farm developer appealed appellee township's denial of its application for a conditional use permit. The court sustained the appeal, holding that appellant was entitled to a deemed approval of its conditional use application where appellee rendered a final written decision more than 45 days after the extended date on which the parties expressly agreed that the evidentiary record would close.
Publication Date: 2024-05-17 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Panella Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 624 WDA 2023
Trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear challenge to DOC's calculation and application of credit for time served. Order of the trial court affirmed.
Defendant challenged the search warrant for his iCloud accounts and court found the warrant was supported by probable cause and defendant failed to make a "substantial preliminary showing" that the supporting affidavit contained material falsehoods or omissions. Motion denied.
Petitioner sought review of respondent's decision requiring petitioner to remove three abandoned railroad bridges over township roads. The court affirmed, concluding that substantial evidence supported respondent's decision where the bridges presented hazards of falling concrete, offered no benefit to the public, and created roadway hazards due to their narrow design.
Publication Date: 2024-05-17 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Panella Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 237 WDA 2023
Appellant appealed the trial court's judgment of sentence entered on her convictions, in separate actions, of terroristic threats, harassment and related crimes. The court affirmed, holding in pertinent part that Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence of appellant's mens rea to support her conviction for making a terroristic threat where appellant threatened to kill a victim a short time after the victim saw appellant physically attack another person.
Court dismissed employee's religious discrimination claim based on a failure to grant a religious accommodation where employee could not connect her principle against testing to her religious beliefs and her admitted healthcare demonstrated that she did not consistently apply this principle in her life. Defendant's motion to dismiss granted.
Challenge to local use and occupancy ordinance failed where plaintiff did not suffer a due process violation and where the ordinance had been amended to comply with state law and thus was not preempted. Defendants' motion to dismiss granted.
Hostile work environment claim failed where alleged comments invoking racial stereotypes did not rise to the level of being severe or pervasive, although those comments could support an inference of race discrimination. Defendants' motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part.
Defendant tenant appealed the court's order denying his motion to reinstate his appeal of a municipal court order denying his petition to open default judgment. The court concluded that its order should be affirmed where defendant failed to timely file pleadings below, mistakenly or intentionally misrepresented filing dates to the court, and offered no meritorious legal arguments that would warrant reinstating his appeal.