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"
Police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity where he misrepresented the strength of the sole eyewitness identification and omitted other exculpatory facts, thereby undermining the magistrate's finding of probable cause and violating the arrested individual's clearly established rights. Order of the district court affirmed.
Petitioners sought mandamus to prevent the disclosure of documents the district court ordered released under the fraud exception to the attorney client privilege and court found petitioners failed to show a clear and indisputable abuse of discretion or error of law, a lack of an alternate avenue for adequate relief or a likelihood of irreparable injury. Motion denied.
Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for final approval of a class action settlement and related matters. The court granted the motion where the settlement amount was reasonable in light of plaintiff's novel theory of recovery, which presented an issue of first impression on calculation of overtime compensation under the Minimum Wage Act, and all other class action criteria were satisfied.
Court declined to dismiss illegal search and seizure claim where district attorney's office memo could not authorize a search of a commercial establishment and the memo's threat to shut down the store meant that the employees'/managers' consent to the search and seizure was not voluntary. Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings denied in part and granted in part.
Bank took an interlocutory appeal from the order denying bank's motion to dismiss the New York branch of a class action for lack of standing and court found trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the New York branch of the action and that New York plaintiffs had standing to pursue relief against bank in this action over vehicle repossession. Affirmed.
Sellers challenged equity court's order of specific performance of a real estate contract for the stated price minus insurance proceeds after the building was destroyed by fire before closing and court found the record was devoid of any competent evidence regarding the post-fire value of the property and the only equitable result was a new trial on the amount of the purchase price buyer owed sellers. Vacated and remanded.
Personal injury defendant filed preliminary objections to plaintiff's complaint, seeking dismissal for plaintiff's failure to effectuate proper service. The court granted defendant's preliminary objections and dismissed the case where plaintiff failed to demonstrate a good faith effort to serve original process on defendant.
Publication Date: 2024-03-29 Practice Area:Evidence Industry:E-Commerce Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Dubow Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 2886 EDA 2022
Appellant appealed the trial court's judgment of sentence of life imprisonment after his jury conviction for his role in a scheme to commit murder-for-hire. The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting Commonwealth's Google GPS location data evidence where the data did not constitute hearsay and was properly admissible as self-authenticating business records.
Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's title VII and Pennsylvania Human Relations Act national origin discrimination, disparate treatment, harassment, unequal pay and retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress action and court found his disparate pay claims under his second EEOC complaint were not time-barred, he sufficiently alleged retaliation in his second complaint but his claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy failed. Motion granted in part and denied in part.