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"
In a §1925(a) opinion, the court justified its denial of SEPTA's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial based upon the court's conclusion that the "jerk and jolt" doctrine did not apply in this case.
Making only one attempt to serve process after filing a complaint and waiting eight months to effect service, after the limitations period would have expired, did not constitute good faith diligence at timely serving process. Order of the superior court reversed.
Plaintiff sought partition of real property that she owned with defendant. The court ordered the property partitioned, calculated the amounts owed between the parties in light of credits based upon amounts paid and the property's fair rental value for pertinent periods, and set out proper disbursement amounts for any sale proceeds, depending upon the parties' intentions for the property's final disposition.
The court's §1925(a) opinion urged affirmance of its Oct. 11, 2023 order denying post-trial relief and its October 17, 2023 order and judgment in favor of plaintiff whose vacant commercial lot was subject to a deliberate water intrusion by defendants from their adjacent property which was uphill to the plaintiff's property.
The court urged the Superior Court to affirm its order that ruled on exceptions to a Master's Report that determined the fair market value of a residence owned by the parties and other issues that were not appealable as a final order.
Trial court erred in dismissing minority shareholder oppression and declaratory judgment claims because, although appellant appeared to be seeking consummation of payment under the parties' settlement, he also alleged that appellees had disregarded his rights as a minority shareholder and sought judicial declaration of his shareholder status, forms of relief not available at law. Order of the trial court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
In a case arising from the death of a youth from an overdose of illegal drugs in the home of appellants, the court reversed a ruling of the Superior Court that emotional distress damages were covered under an insurance policy providing liability coverage for bodily injury when the policy excluded emotional distress from its definition of bodily injury.
Defendant appealed the court's order granting partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. The court concluded that it did not err in granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment where the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to defendant's failure to obtain counsel to represent an indispensable corporate party in the ongoing litigation.
Publication Date: 2024-05-10 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Supreme Court Judge:Justice McCaffery Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 83 MAP 2023
Appellant appealed the Superior Court's order affirming the post conviction review court's denial of his petition for post conviction relief. The court held that appellant's trial attorney did not render per se ineffective assistance by failing to object when the trial court provided the jury with written instructions not specifically authorized under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 646.