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"
Publication Date: 2024-02-16 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Bender Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 291 MDA 2023
Commonwealth lacked sufficient evidence to convict appellant for illegally operating a vehicle without an ignition interlock device where it failed to present evidence that PennDOT notified licensee that his ignition interlock requirement continued after the statutory one-year term until he obtained an unrestricted license. Conviction reversed, judgment of sentence vacated.
Plaintiff moved to compel discovery in its a class action under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law and court found the allegations forming the substance of plaintiff's wage and hour violations were not limited to distinct activities performed by field supervisors, defendant did not explain how the request imposed an undue burden, defendant did not provide a sufficiently detailed privilege log for those documents which it declined to produce and pre-certification discovery of the name
Defendant medical providers sought summary judgment on plaintiff's claim alleging professional liability regarding treatment of a patient who was suffering a mental illness. The court denied defendants' motion where plaintiff's expert opined that defendants acted in gross deviation from the standard of care for a patient suffering from a delirium, with the result that defendants could be ineligible for the limited immunity afforded under the Mental Health Procedures Act.
Publication Date: 2024-02-16 Practice Area:Criminal Appeals Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Stabile Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 1602 EDA 2022
Trial court properly rejected defense of others justification where defendant attacked unarmed person with a deadly weapon, and thus could not reasonably believe that protectee faced imminent risk of severe injury or death and used unreasonable force to protect the other person. Convictions affirmed, judgment of sentence affirmed in part and vacated in part.
Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction in its patent infringement action alleging infringement on a design patent and court found plaintiff did not show an ordinary observer would be deceived into mistakenly purchasing defendant's accused product instead of plaintiff's Tote Hanger and plaintiff offered no concrete evidence to support the claim of irreparable harm. Motion denied.
This §1925(a) opinion was submitted by the court in support of its order granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of appellee Cheltenham Nursing in a slip and fall case.
Appellant appealed local zoning hearing board's rejection of its application for a use variance for construction of multi-family housing on four adjacent parcels. The court remanded to appellee board for further development of the evidentiary record and reconsideration.
Defendants moved for summary judgment in inmate's action asserting retaliation and Americans with Disabilities Act discrimination and court found there was no evidence and no genuine issue of material fact to suggest any retaliation and plaintiff proffered no evidence to support his theory that defendants deliberately discriminated against him by placing him in a medical unit. Motion granted.
Defendants moved for summary judgment in plaintiff's Americans with Disabilities Act, Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and Philadelphia Fair Practice Ordinance action based on her termination for refusing a COVID-19 vaccination and court found there was a genuine issue dispute as to whether plaintiff had a disability, whether she was a qualified individual and whether defendants engaged in an interactive process but her retaliation claim failed because she failed to prove any retaliatory motive by defendants and defendants articulated