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"
Imposition of new regulations and allegedly inconsistent and selective enforcement of registrations and assessments in temporal proximity to constitutionally-protected litigation activity created genuine issue of material fact on First Amendment retaliation claim. Motion for summary judgment denied in part and granted in part.
Publication Date: 2018-07-17 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Stabile Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0803
Commonwealth not required to advise defendant of statutory exception to EWOC offense permitting conviction by victim's 50th birthday, which rendered defendant's prosecution timely. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Orphans' court properly imposed a surcharge on appellant former executrix for her failure to administer decedent's estate with reasonableness and prudence where estate attorney embezzled estate funds. Affirmed.
Defendant was entitled to summary judgment in plaintiff's gender and pregnancy discrimination action because plaintiff presented no evi-dence to rebut the legitimate reason for her termination articulated by defendant, i.e. that plaintiff failed to meet the required sales per hour benchmark. Motion granted.
A criminal defendant was not entitled to post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, but the court fashioned a remedy to allow defendant to have the benefit of his plea bargain, which included registering as a sex offender for a shorter period of time.
The court opined that it did not err in granting a petition for the appointment of a conservator for a Philadelphia property pursuant to the Abandoned and Blighted Conservatorship Act despite non-compliance with the 60-day hearing provision in the Act since the provision was directory, not mandatory, in nature. The court recommended affirmance of its order denying respondent's motion to strike.
The notice proposed by treasurer as part of an escheatment proceeding pursuant to §1301.10(b) of the fiscal code to reunite matured, unredeemed and unclaimed U.S savings bonds with their owners was defective because the treasurer needed to modify the notice to correct the internal inconsistencies created by rule 430(b)(1)'s application in these particular circumstances. Application denied.
The trial court properly found that defendant was subjected to an investigative detention and that his actions in speaking to a woman on a street in a high crime area with his hand in his pocket did not provide the required reasonable suspicion to support such a detention. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's suppression order.
Publication Date: 2018-07-17 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Lazarus Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0830
Trial court erred in granting suppression motion where officers had reasonable suspicion their safety had been compromised to conduct protective sweep of passenger area, including storage compartments therein, for vehicles. Order of the trial court reversed, case remanded.
Publication Date: 2018-07-17 Practice Area:Family Law Industry: Court:Commonwealth Court Judge:Judge Covey Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 18-0832
Bureau of hearings and appeals properly held that child's guardian ad litem was not entitled to intervene in child's father's appeal from the expungement hearing because GAL had no right to intervene under SPO rule1 or §35.28 of GRAPP since GAL stated no interest such that his participation was in the "public interest" and child's interest in the expungement hearing was the same as that of DHS and was protected by DHS. Affirmed.