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: 2017-12-19 Practice Area:Criminal Law Industry: Court:Supreme Court Judge:Justice Saylor Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 17-1822
In this case of first impression, the high court held that parole agents have authority to conduct a protective Terry frisk of non-parolees within the course of executing their statutorily imposed duties so long as their conduct is supported by reasonable suspicion. The court affirmed an intermediate court order affirming defendants judgment of sentence.
Commonwealth Court erred in denying summary relief to senators in their challenge to the governors veto of bills returned after the general assembly adjourned because Art. IV, §15 of the Pennsylvania Constitution required the bills to be returned to the house, not an agent, and the governors press release lacked the formal requirements to constitute a proclamation under §15; thus, the governors purported vetoes of the general appropriations act of 2014 and the 2014 fiscal code amendments were constitutionally deficient. Reversed.
Descendents mere speculation that decedent died from something other than natural causes was insufficient reasonable cause to warrant disinterment of decedents remains. Order of the orphans court affirmed.
The court held that a party waived his right to appeal where the court previously ordered him to file a concise statement of errors regarding issues on appeal, and he failed to do so.
Publication Date: 2017-12-19 Practice Area:Judges Industry: Court:Supreme Court Judge:Judge Saylor Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 17-1828
Removal sanction affirmed where court was limited to reviewing lawfulness of discipline, and where CJD had wide discretion to fashion discipline tailored to individual facts of case. Order of the Court of Judicial Discipline affirmed.
Commonwealth court correctly held that the district attorney and her office were not judicial agencies under the RTKL because DAs were system and related personnel but not personnel of the unified judicial system and had to be related staff which were expressly not personnel of the system. Affirmed.
Appellant, an auction company allegedly damaged when a court halted an auction sale, could not recover equitable relief since it failed to properly preserve such a claim in this suit and came before the court with unclean hands regarding its knowledge of the alleged breaching parties. The court recommended affirmance of its order denying appellant relief.
Defendants were entitled to a new trial where plaintiffs counsel made repeated reference to the amount of manpower provided at plaintiffs workplace prior to his injuries in violation of a court order and made an irrelevant and prejudicial reference to the deaths of two fellow railroad carmen during plaintiffs trial. The court reversed an order denying defendants a new trial and remanded.
Plaintiffs claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act failed because the act did not apply in her action against a private condominium association and did not provide protection for emotional therapy dogs as accommodations for disabilities. The court denied plaintiff injunctive relief and dismissed her case.
Defense counsel correctly posited that defendants appeal was wholly frivolous where there was no viable challenge to the legality of his final sentence and no prior challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence either at the sentencing hearing or in a post-sentence motion. The court affirmed defendants judgment of sentence and granted counsels petition to withdraw.
1 minute read