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"
Plaintiff's allegations that the defendant homeowners were negligent in the way they treated and/or maintained a set of wooden stairs such that the stairs were very slippery and that defendants had, in the past, warned other invitees about the slippery stairs were sufficient to state a viable negligence claim. The court overruled defendants' preliminary objection in part.
Publication Date: 2018-07-31 Practice Area:Tax Industry: Court:Commonwealth Court Judge:Judge Jubelirer Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0894
Secretary's order correctly held that petitioner's Keystone Opportunity Zone benefits for 2013, 2014 and 2015 were subject to recapture under §902(a) and that no waiver could be granted under §902(b) but erred in denying petitioner's request for KOZ benefits for the month of January 2016. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
District court erred in deciding that the Delaware river basin commission's project review authority under the Delaware river basin compact unambiguously included appellant's proposed fracking activities because the parties identified conflicting, reasonable interpretations of the term "project" and the term, as used in the compact, was ambiguous. Vacated and remanded.
Physicians not entitled to limited immunity under the Mental Health Procedures Act where they did not treat decedent for mental illness and their treatment occurred prior to psychiatric evaluation and was therefore not contemporaneous medical treatment. Judgment of nonsuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Publication Date: 2018-07-24 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Panella Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0854
Trial court properly limited the number of incidents of prior bad acts into evidence where the limited number admitted into evidence was sufficient to support the commonwealth's allegation of defendant's criminal scheme, while the prior bad acts concerned the direct criminal activity of others and therefore had a significant prejudicial effect on defendant. Order of the trial court affirmed.
Defendant non-profit organization moved for summary judgment in plaintiff member's action for defamation and defamation by innuendo and court denied the motion as to the defamation count because plaintiff was not a limited public figure, the statements were not made solely in connection with his termination as an employee and there was no privilege, but the letter informing plaintiff that he was being removed from hunting awards and the record book did not support a claim for defamation by innuendo. Granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2018-07-24 Practice Area:Criminal Appeals Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Olson Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0856
The trial court did not err in sentencing defendant, who was convicted as a juvenile of second-degree murder prior to June 2012, to the maximum term of life imprisonment under 18 Pa.C.S. §1102(b) as this mandatory maximum did not violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.
The district court erred when it distinguished between two tenants by the entirety and pierced the corporate veil of an entity they owned with regard to only one of the two tenants as a sanction for his egregious misconduct during the discovery process. The appellate court reversed and remanded.
Trial court erred in holding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over defendant Connecticut company in plaintiff's breach of contract action because defendant registered to do business in Pennsylvania as a foreign association, nothing in 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5301 limited jurisdiction to claims that occurred after registration and by registering, defendant consented to general personal jurisdiction. Reversed.
Due process complaint based on injury caused by transport of special needs student dismissed on summary judgment where student had no "special relationship" with school and lack of reasonable foreseeability of harm or conscience-shocking conduct meant no state-created danger. Defendants' motion for summary judgment granted.