Court Filings

The Sixth District Court of Appeal granted the Department of Revenue’s motion to dismiss an appeal by Adrelynn Shattell Thomas for lack of jurisdiction. Thomas, the obligee parent, attempted to directly appeal a final administrative paternity and support order entered February 10, 2026. The court followed White v. Department of Revenue and concluded Florida law (section 409.2563 read with chapter 120) authorizes direct appellate review only to the obligor parent and the Department in these administrative support proceedings, not to an obligee parent. Because Thomas lacked statutory standing to invoke direct review, the appeal was dismissed.

The Appellate Division, Second Department dismissed a CPLR article 78 proceeding brought by Simon Kinsella challenging a March 18, 2021 Public Service Commission determination that granted South Fork Wind, LLC a certificate for an offshore submarine export cable. The court granted motions by the Commission, Department of Public Service, and South Fork Wind to dismiss because the petitioner failed to timely join South Fork as a necessary party within the 30-day limitations period following the Commission’s final order. Because the defect was jurisdictional under the governing statute and precedent, the court dismissed the proceeding without costs.

The court dismissed H&S Investment Properties, LLC’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to force the Ashtabula County Auditor to change the owner name on the county tax list to match an affidavit recorded under R.C. 5301.252. The court held that the recorder’s affidavit statute does not itself create a right to change tax-roll entries and that the auditor’s duty under R.C. 319.28 is to compile the tax list, not to alter it based on a recorded affidavit. Because Relator cannot show a clear legal right or corresponding clear legal duty by the auditor, mandamus relief was unavailable and the petition was dismissed; the summary-judgment motion was denied as moot.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed an original petition for a writ of mandamus filed by P.R. and M.Z. against the Department of Children and Families. The opinion is per curiam, issued April 21, 2026, and does not include substantive reasoning in the published entry. The court noted the decision is not final until any timely motion under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 is resolved. Judges Lewis, Winokur, and Neff concurred.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed Terrence Pellet’s petition for a writ of prohibition seeking relief against the Florida Department of Revenue, Child Support Program. The petition was filed in the court’s original jurisdiction, and the per curiam order simply states the petition is dismissed without published opinion. All three judges concurred. No additional reasoning, factual findings, or relief were set forth in the decision.

The Texas Department of Insurance filed an original proceeding in the Seventh Court of Appeals to challenge the denial of its motion to quash a subpoena in an underlying Lubbock County case. While the petition was pending, the Department and the plaintiff (Real Party in Interest, Traci Johnson) resolved their discovery dispute by a Rule 11 agreement, and the Department filed a notice that it intended to withdraw its petition. Because the parties settled and the relator withdrew its challenge, the court dismissed the Department's original proceeding without deciding the subpoena issue on the merits.

The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed a disciplinary complaint against Judge John W. Rudduck arising from his personal Facebook activity endorsing his son’s campaign and defending him online. The Board of Professional Conduct had found violations of several judicial-conduct rules and recommended a public reprimand, but the Court held that Jud.Cond.R. 4.1(A)(3) — the rule prohibiting judges from publicly endorsing candidates for other offices — is a content-based restriction on political speech that fails strict scrutiny and therefore violates the First Amendment. Because the finding under Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 relied on the invalidated rule, and the Court also found no violation of Jud.Cond.R. 1.3, the complaint was dismissed.