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"
Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act and 11 U.S.C. §524 claims over the way defendant handled plaintiff's post-bankruptcy mortgage payments and court found defendant was not a debt collector under the FDPCA, plaintiff could not show justifiable reliance to support his UTPCPL claim, purchase money mortgages were excluded from coverage under the FCEUA and there was no private right of a
Plaintiff waived her claim for post-trial relief from a jury verdict of zero compensatory damages based on an allegedly erroneous jury charge where her counsel had ample opportunity to raise the objection during trial but failed to do so. The court denied plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
Defendant moved for a motion in limine to exclude prior conviction evidence prosecution proffered under F.R.E. 404(b) and court found prosecution failed to satisfy the first or second step in the rule 404(b) process. Motion granted.
The appellate court refused to disturb a $70 million verdict awarded to a young man suffering from gynecomastia, i.e., the enlargement or swelling of breast tissue in males, as a result of taking defendants' pharmaceutical product since the verdict was not inconsistent with the evidence of his suffering due to the social consequences of his severe and permanent disfigurement. The appellate court affirmed in relevant part.
Publication Date: 2019-12-16 Practice Area:Criminal Appeals Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Bender Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 19-1435
The evidence of record supported defendant's conviction for obstructing the administration of law or other governmental function where he refused to submit to a blood draw despite being served with a valid search warrant secured by police. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.
Defendant's motion for summary judgment in copyright infringement case denied where claims properly sounded in copyright rather than breach of contract as the claims alleged unauthorized use of copyrighted work, rather than a simple failure to pay invoices. Parties' cross-motions for summary judgment denied.
The court overruled defendants' preliminary objections regarding punitive damages and equitable relief in this matter involving a question of water diversion onto plaintiff's property.
The township zoning hearing board erred in requiring plaintiffs to prove an unnecessary hardship to establish a right to a de minimis variance for a sign; however, plaintiffs were not entitled to a de minimis variance, i.e., a narrow exception to the application of a zoning ordinance, since their large sign expansion was beyond the scope of such a variance. The court denied plaintiffs' appeal in part.
Defendant employer moved for summary judgment in plaintiff's employment discrimination action and court found plaintiff asserted sufficient facts for a reasonable jury to find he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his national origin but he failed to show an adverse employment action and constructive discharge. Motion granted in part and denied in part.
Defendant was not entitled to open a default judgment because she failed to promptly file her request to open, lacked a meritorious defense, and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her failure to file a responsive pleading.