Court Filings

The appellate court reviewed Rhonda Gail Tomlinson’s appeal from a Hillsborough County circuit court judgment involving Jeff Allen Tomlinson and related business entities. The Second District issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court’s ruling. The opinion is brief and contains no published reasoning; the panel simply affirmed the judgment below and noted concurrence by the three judges. No further factual findings, legal analysis, or modification of the trial court’s decision are included in the opinion.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a case where Irma Cristal Perdomo appealed a judgment involving Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as trustee. The appeal was taken from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County and was decided without published opinion beyond the single-word disposition. The panel issued a per curiam order affirming the circuit court's judgment with three judges concurring. No extended reasoning or detailed facts were provided in the appellate entry.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal by Eagles Nest Development Co., Inc. and Helicopter Structural & Maintenance, Inc. from a Pasco County circuit-court decision. After considering the record and briefs, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision. The per curiam opinion gives no extended discussion of legal reasoning; the judgment of the trial court therefore stands as entered. All three judges concurred.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a dispute between BISK Education, Inc. (appellant) and FSOI, LLC (appellee). The appeal was taken from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County before Judge Helene L. Daniel. The appellate panel issued a per curiam decision on May 1, 2026, concluding that the lower court's ruling should stand. No extended reasoning or factual details are provided in the published entry beyond the affirmation and the judges' concurrence.

The Washington Supreme Court answered a certified question from a federal district court about whether RCW 70.170.060(8)(a) — the charity care notice provision — applies to a debt collection agency collecting hospital debt. The court held yes: collection agencies collecting hospital debt must provide notice of charity care under the plain language and policy of the charity care act, and an assignee of hospital debt takes on notice obligations tied to that debt. The court further explained that failure to provide notice can support a non-per-se Consumer Protection Act claim based on violation of the act’s public-policy goals.

The Washington Supreme Court answered certified questions from a federal case about whether a home equity line of credit (HELOC) is a negotiable instrument and whether an alleged beneficiary can be the “holder” of such a HELOC for purposes of initiating a nonjudicial trustee’s sale under the deed of trust act (DTA). The majority held that HELOCs of this revolving type are nonnegotiable and that the DTA’s requirement that the beneficiary be the “holder” refers to the holder of a negotiable instrument under the Uniform Commercial Code, so RRA could not truthfully declare it was the holder and thus could not proceed nonjudicially. The court noted judicial remedies remain available.

The Washington Supreme Court held that child welfare records in the custody of the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) are generally privileged under RCW 74.04.060(1)(a), but an exception in that statute permits disclosure when the records are needed in a judicial proceeding directly concerned with administration of the foster care program. The court also held RCW 13.50.100 does not bar disclosure because plaintiffs are entitled to records that “pertain” to them. The trial courts’ orders compelling production of redacted records under protective orders were affirmed; fee requests were denied.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s confirmation of an arbitration award and the entry of a final decree of divorce. The parties had agreed in a signed Cooperative Participation Agreement to mediate and, if necessary, proceed to binding arbitration. After arbitration produced an award dividing assets and awarding fees, appellee Shechter filed an application to confirm the award under R.C. 2711.09. The court held that the domestic relations court had jurisdiction to confirm the award and enter judgment under R.C. 2711.12 because the statutory procedures for confirmation, vacatur, or modification under Chapter 2711 control, and Dubick failed to timely move to vacate or modify the award.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Lyndhurst Municipal Court’s dismissal with prejudice of Stedson McIntyre’s small-claims suit against Landscape Management & Design, Inc. McIntyre claimed the company’s snowplow damaged five driveway lights and introduced a video. The magistrate found the video showed the plow stayed on the driveway and that the missing lights were obscured by displaced snow, not destroyed by the driver. The appellate court held there was competent, credible evidence to support the trial court’s finding of no breach of duty and affirmed under the manifest-weight standard.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Schuler Painting, Inc. and the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, concluding that plaintiff Robert Leghart was an independent contractor, not an employee, when he was injured. Leghart sought workers’ compensation after a June 29, 2022 scaffolding fall; the Bureau denied benefits and the trial court granted summary judgment to defendants. The appellate court found the undisputed facts — lack of payroll or onboarding paperwork, payment by invoice and Form 1099, short-term work arrangement, and medical records describing him as self-employed — supported the independent-contractor finding and no genuine factual dispute existed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Alexandria Kung’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion and upheld the entry of final judgment for State Farm. Kung had sued State Farm over the appraisal-based valuation of two stolen personal articles. After State Farm obtained an appraisal and issued payment, the trial court entered summary judgment. Kung sought relief from judgment claiming lack of notice, attorney withdrawal, and alleged improper influence of the appraisal umpire. The appellate court concluded Kung failed to timely appeal the summary-judgment order, could not use Civ.R. 60(B) as a substitute for a direct appeal, and did not demonstrate entitlement to relief on the record.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Matthew Joy’s two-count complaint against The MetroHealth System. Joy alleged breach of contract and wrongful termination for reporting patient-safety concerns, relying on a March 2022 reappointment letter and MetroHealth’s employee handbook and a reporting policy. The court held that the documents did not create an employment contract or modify at-will status, and Joy failed to plead a specific source of law showing a clear public policy prohibiting his termination. Because the pleadings and attached writings could not support relief as a matter of law, judgment on the pleadings was proper.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s grant of legal custody and designation of the father as the residential parent of A.C.-L., following a custody application by the father under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2). The mother appealed pro se arguing lack of notice, failure to consider custodial history and documentary evidence, absence of an active guardian ad litem, erroneous factual findings, an unfavorable exchange time, and improper child-support handling. The appellate court reviewed for plain error because the mother did not file transcripts below, found no prejudice from the GAL’s nonparticipation, and concluded the juvenile court acted within its discretion and applied the statutory best-interest standard, so it affirmed.

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment finding Marysville Animal Care Center, LLC breached an employment agreement with Dr. Cassie Wooden by failing to timely offer her either a partnership interest or a $45,000 bonus after three years of employment. The magistrate and trial court found the parties had orally modified Dr. Wooden’s work schedule to three clinic days per week by course of conduct, so the December 7, 2021 partnership offer conditioned on returning to four clinic days did not cure the earlier breach. The court rejected appellant’s challenges to factual findings, parol-evidence rulings, credibility determinations, and alleged bias.

The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County Common Pleas Court's grant of summary judgment to The Huntington National Bank in a breach-of-loan case. The bank sued Xiaowei He for unpaid balances under a June 15, 2021 loan; the trial court found He defaulted and owed $19,187.69. The appeals court rejected He’s arguments that the case should have been dismissed for lack of prosecution, that the bank lacked standing because it sold the loan, and that fraud by a third party relieved her of liability. The court held the loan was charged-off (not sold) and remained enforceable, and no genuine factual dispute precluded judgment.

The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas’ grant of summary judgment to the Director of the Ohio Division of Cannabis Control. Bear River Dispensaries (appellant) sold its medical marijuana certificate before applying for an adult-use dispensary license under former R.C. 3780.10(B). The court held the statute unambiguously requires applicants to possess a medical certificate at the time of application, not merely have possessed one earlier, so the Division correctly denied appellant’s adult-use application and the trial court properly entered judgment for the Division.

The Superior Court affirmed the Orphans’ Court decree that denied Jacob Singer’s petition to compel burial arrangements for his father, Irvin Michael Singer. The Orphans’ Court had stayed burial pending a hearing after Jacob alleged his brother and executor, David Singer, planned a private burial and excluded siblings. The Superior Court held that a valid will appointed David as executor and expressly directed burial in the family plot, and that Section 305 of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code is subject to a decedent’s valid will. Because the will gave the executor authority over burial, Jacob’s majority-next-of-kin argument failed.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that when a contract is governed by the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA), a consumer may rescind the home-improvement contract within three business days by giving actual notice of cancellation to the contractor even if that notice is not in writing. The Office of Attorney General sued Gillece for refusing to honor timely oral or other non-written cancellations; the trial court granted partial summary judgment and issued an injunction, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed. The Supreme Court concluded HICPA’s specific, later-enacted consumer-protection rescission rule controls over any general written-notice language in the older UTPCPL.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected Gillece’s argument that a consumer’s oral cancellation of a home-improvement contract is ineffective unless followed by written notice. The court concluded that the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law are meant to protect consumers, and that requiring written follow-up would undermine that purpose when a seller knows a consumer asked to cancel. The court therefore held sellers must honor an oral cancellation for contracts covered by the home‑improvement law and emphasized best practices of documenting cancellations in writing.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court's order on April 30, 2026, resolving an appeal brought by Elliot-Todd Parker Koger and Todd Elliott Koger Sr. (the "Koger Family") against multiple state entities and officials including the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency and county court officers. The Supreme Court issued a short per curiam order that simply states the Commonwealth Court's decision is affirmed, without extended opinion or additional reasoning in this document. The procedural posture shows this appeal follows the Commonwealth Court's September 5, 2025 order in a matter previously litigated and identified at this Court's earlier docket entries.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court and trial court orders dismissing Clearfield County’s lawsuit against construction professionals as time-barred by the 12-year construction statute of repose, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5536. The County argued the common-law doctrine nullum tempus (no time runs against the sovereign) should toll the repose period, but the Court held nullum tempus cannot be used to defeat a statute of repose. Because a statute of repose abolishes causes of action after a fixed period and is not subject to tolling, the County’s claims, filed decades after construction finished, were jurisdictionally barred.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s decision that the Borough of West Chester’s municipal “stream protection fee” is a local tax, not a fee for service. The Borough had enacted the charge to fund stormwater management and compliance with federal and state stormwater regulations; universities (PASSHE and West Chester University) challenged it as an unlawful tax on exempt entities or as an improper fee. The Court held the Borough acted in its public capacity, providing a general public benefit and lacking a voluntary contractual relationship with property owners, so the charge functions as a tax from which the universities are immune.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the denial of defendant 494 Eighth Avenue LLC’s summary judgment motion in a personal-injury sidewalk-trip case. Plaintiff said she tripped on an uneven sidewalk near a disassembled police barricade and testified the height differential was about one to one-and-a-half inches. The court held the defendant failed to show the alleged defect was trivial as a matter of law because the submitted photos and affidavit were inconclusive and the superintendent’s estimate was not a measured fact. Plaintiff’s testimony and possible violation of the NYC Administrative Code created questions of fact for trial.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment after a nonjury trial in a lease dispute between Rose Group Park Avenue LLC (tenant) and Third Church Christ, Scientist of New York City (landlord). The court held that the lease's audit provisions limit the landlord to auditing only the prior lease year and bar audits seeking information from earlier years; directed certain payroll records be included in future audits; required return of the landlord's protested payment except for amounts the court found due from the tenant's affiliate; and upheld various declaratory and injunctive rulings concerning weekday use, occupancy rights, equipment use, alterations, signage, and auditorium setup. The court grounded its decision in the express lease language and prior appellate rulings interpreting those provisions.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment holding the plaintiff liable on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim. The plaintiff testified he slipped on gravel and fell into an unguarded trench up to 10–12 feet deep alongside a building foundation; the trench had a makeshift pathway but no guardrail. The court found this testimony uncontradicted and held defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact or justify the absence of a guardrail as necessary to the work. The judgment for plaintiff on liability was therefore upheld.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a lower court order requiring petitioner Harold Peerenboom to reimburse Marvel Entertainment, LLC for reasonable production expenses incurred in responding to a subpoena. The court held that under New York's CPLR the party seeking discovery must pay a nonparty's reasonable production costs, and that such costs can include third-party vendor charges and attorneys' fees. The court also upheld the trial court's reductions to requested attorney rates and rejected petitioner's reliance on federal balancing tests and arguments that certain withholding-related costs were categorically unrecoverable.

The First Department unanimously affirmed a Bronx County Supreme Court order that required the Archdiocese of New York to produce certain documents (with specified redactions) and denied the Archdiocese's request to vacate that order or to obtain a protective order. The court held that evidence about the Archdiocese's patterns or practices in responding to allegations of clergy sexual abuse is discoverable because it could show a deliberate, repetitive practice of silencing accusations and therefore bear on the Archdiocese's negligence in the plaintiff's specific abuse claim. The appellate court rejected the Archdiocese's other arguments without discussion.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Gordon Grubb's slip-and-fall complaint against the City of New York. The City showed it lacked prior written notice of the specific dangerous condition at the Madison Avenue and East 52nd Street crosswalk as required by the New York City Administrative Code. The court held that the records plaintiff cited did not amount to a written acknowledgment of the particular defect and that plaintiff's allegations did not raise triable issues or satisfy exceptions to the written-notice rule, so dismissal was appropriate.

The First Department affirmed the trial court's posttrial dismissal of Forrest Equities' complaint seeking coverage under a title insurance policy issued by Old Republic. Plaintiffs bought a Bronx building after an explosion and alleged the insurer should cover losses from vacate orders, relocation and emergency repair liens, and related litigation. The court held the policy did not provide coverage because the alleged enforcement actions and liens were not recorded in the public recording system required by the policy, and a lis pendens or vacate order alone did not make title unmarketable. Contract terms and exclusions controlled.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court's dismissal under CPLR 3211 of all claims in plaintiff Belina Anderson's complaint against multiple defendants. The court held Anderson's derivative claims failed because she did not plead a required pre-suit demand or futility, her individual fiduciary-duty and nuisance claims did not allege fraud, self-dealing, or unconscionability and were barred by the business judgment rule or arose from contract duties, and her declaratory-judgment and direct claims were speculative or lacked factual support. The court rejected Anderson's procedural challenge under CPLR 2219(a).