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"
Orphans' court erred in awarding attorneys' fees and costs to nonprofit foundation directors under §5782(c), in action alleging directors had exercised undue influence and breached their fiduciary duties, because neither the plain language of §5782(c) nor the parties' compromise permitted orphans' court to award attorneys' fees and costs against individuals who were never members and who could not bring a derivative action in the first place. Reversed.
Publication Date: 2024-02-09 Practice Area:Family Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Stabile Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 1774 EDA 2023
Trial court committed legal error by preventing child's legal and best interest attorneys from participating in child's in camera interview in contravention of Pa.R.J.C.P. 1128(A)-(B) and 1134 during a dependency and reunification hearing. Vacated.
Plaintiff brought a credit card collections action against defendant. The court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff for the amount of defendant's unpaid credit card balance, plus court costs.
Personal injury plaintiff appealed the trial court's entry of judgment against him. The court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing plaintiff's motion to sever his personal injury suit from his employer's consolidated property damage case where evidence of the underlying accident was largely the same, although the parties' rights and liabilities differed.
Publication Date: 2024-02-09 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Bowes Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 987 WDA 2022
Court remanded dismissal of Post Conviction Relief Act petition where defendant supplemented with claims of ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel and PCRA court failed to adequately explain the reasons for dismissing the petition. Order of the PCRA court vacated, case remanded.
Defendant moved to compel arbitration in plaintiff's Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law and Family and Medical Leave Act action asserting he was unlawfully terminated and court found there was an arbitration agreement, the agreement equivocated as to whether the parties agreed to invoke the Federal Arbitration Act and the agreement provided for arbitrator to decide threshold questions of arbitrability as well as issues of validity, enforceability, and unconscionability. Motion granted.
In this §1925(a) opinion, the court asked the Superior Court to affirm its discretionary order denying defendants' pretextual motion to quash a subpoena to Michael Stillwell, the sole principal of both defendants, and for a protective order because defendants failed to proffer any justification for setting aside the order enforcing the subpoena and merely claimed the court had erred or abused its discretion and Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 234.4, 3117, 4011, and 4012 support the court's discretionary decision.
School district's complaint for declaratory and equitable relief from underassessment of property was barred by the statutory remedy under the Assessment Law. Order of the trial court affirmed.
Court concluded that only one of defendant's underlying convictions, his federal carjacking conviction, was a "crime of violence" for Armed Career Criminal Act purposes and ordered a resentencing hearing. Motion granted.
Trial court erred in reversing board's grant of a zoning variance because board did not err or abuse its discretion in finding that res judicata did not bar Total Custom Homes Inc. from filing the variance application and that TCH met its burden of proving its entitlement to the requested dimensional variance under the Hertzberg v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 721 A. 2d 43, standards. Reversed.