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"
Defendants filed motions to compel supplemental responses to defendants' requests for production of documents and an authorization for release of social security administration records in a medical malpractice suit alleging the improper administration of opioid medication in defendants' emergency room. Motions granted in part and denied in part.
Trial court erred in finding a private road because there was no allegation in the complaint or any evidence in the record demonstrating that the road was ever laid out and opened as a private road pursuant to the Private Road Act and use alone did not establish a private road or create an easement. Reversed.
Plaintiff sued defendant for recovery of personal property in defendant's possession. The court issued a writ of seizure in plaintiff's favor where she established her probable right to possession of personal property items left at defendant's residence after she vacated at defendant's request.
Defendants moved to strike plaintiffs' expert witness report and testimony regarding the extent to which plaintiffs suffered trauma from alleged racial discrimination experienced at defendants' property. The court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to strike, concluding the expert's reasoning, in light of the testing that he performed, did not allow him to testify that the trauma symptoms he observed in individual plaintiffs were linked to the alleged discrimination that took place at defendants' park.
Defendant bank moved for summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims over money defendant withdrew from his account after plaintiff was the victim of a fraud and court found defendant acted consistently with its account-holder agreement in attempting to assist plaintiff in recovering his money. Motion granted.
Although zoning ordinance restricting discharge of firearms implicated right to bear arms, such regulations were consistent with the historical tradition of restricting the discharge of firearms and the location of designated shooting ranges. Order of the commonwealth court reversed and remanded.
Superior court erred in denying attorney fees in appellant's action over a non-compete agreement and erred insofar as it imposed an absolute bar on the award of damages after the non-compete period expired but appellant did not establish at trial that it suffered lost-profit damages extending beyond the non-compete period. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Appellant appealed the trial court's denial of his appeal from the suspension of his vehicle operating privilege for 18 months, and from the lifetime disqualification of his commercial driving privilege. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that appellant was not subject to lifetime disqualification of his commercial driving privilege where the officer who arrested him for driving a private vehicle under the influence failed to advise him that his refusal to submit to a blood test could result in lifetime loss o
Plaintiff credit card issuer sought judgment against defendant cardholder for the balance due on defendant's account. The court awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant where plaintiff proffered credible evidence that defendant ceased making payments on his card balance, leaving an outstanding balance due.
Defendants moved to certify on interlocutory appeal a question as to the application of the first-to-file doctrine in a qui tam action and court found there was no controlling question of law. Motion denied.