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"
Sex offenders conviction for failing to register new address reversed where sex offender registration statute under which offender was charged was subsequently ruled unconstitutional. Order of the superior court reversed.
PCRA petition was timely under newly-discovered fact exception where defendant asserted FBIs novel admission that its microscopic hair analysis was scientifically. Order of the PCRA court reversed.
An employee exhausted her administrative remedies prior to filing a discrimination lawsuit where she submitted a verified questionnaire regarding her employment discrimination claims and insisted that the agency act on the issues raised in her questionnaire.
Defendants request for the home addresses of township tenants receiving Section 8 housing benefits represented an intrusion on the tenants constitutional right to privacy in their home addresses, and the township failed to demonstrate a significant government interest that outweighed the tenants right to privacy in that information. The court reversed a court order directing disclosure.
Trial court erred in holding that school district failed to establish a prima facie case in taxpayers property assessment challenge because the boards assessment records were introduced into evidence without objection and taxpayers failed to overcome the validity of the assessment when they offered no evidence as to the actual market value of the parcels. Reversed and remanded.
Trial court granted insurers motion for summary judgment, in plaintiffs action asserting a failure to defend in an underlying action arising from plaintiffs action in filing a conservatorship petition, because insurers insured civic organization was dismissed from the underlying action with prejudice, plaintiff was not an officer of the organization at the time he filed the petition and the policy contained a duel service exclusion that barred coverage for plaintiff. Motion granted.
Defendant, who ingested Tylenol with codeine prior to entering a guilty plea, failed to establish that the plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary where he appeared alert and attentive before the court and gave intelligent answers demonstrating his comprehension of the proceedings. The court recommended affirmance of an order denying defendants motion to withdraw his plea.
The court granted certification of plaintiffs proposed class of members who were subject to Delaware law but not as to those subject to Virginia law in plaintiffs action alleging unjust enrichment in defendants solicitation of its customers to purchase an identity theft and credit-motoring product when activating their store credit cards because differences in state law under the voluntary payment rule meant that the Virginia class members did not satisfy the predominance requirement under rule 23(b)(3). Class partially certified.
The purchasers of a business were entitled to injunctive relief enforcing the terms of a no-competition clause, because the provision was unambiguous and reasonable in terms of time and geographic area. The court upheld an attorney fee award against the seller on appeal.
Court granted plaintiffs motion to strike defendants motion to enforce a confidentiality agreement regarding homicide files produced in response to discovery in plaintiffs §1983 action over constitutional violations in his arrest, first trial and imprisonment because under the Pansy balancing test, defendants could not assert a blanket claim of confidentiality over 10,000 pages of documents or over all homicide files. Motion granted.
1 minute read