Court Filings

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of appellee Moosa Syhead against appellant Nova Palms Holdings LLC. The appeal arose from a Broward County circuit court case (062022CA009666AXXXCE). The appellate panel issued a brief per curiam decision, stating simply 'Affirmed' without elaboration. Because the opinion offers no substantive explanation, the appellate court left intact the lower court's ruling and allowed any timely motion for rehearing to proceed under normal rules.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a dispute between homeowner Mary Burliuk Holt and Lighthouse Bay Condominium Association, Inc. The appeal (No. 4D2025-0869) challenged a ruling from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County. The appellate panel issued a per curiam opinion simply stating 'Affirmed' without published reasoning, and the three judges concurred. The decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a county court judgment in an appeal by Kevin Flynn and Stacey Dever against French Village Condominium Association, Bryan Taylor, and John Beech. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision, endorsing the lower court's ruling without published opinion and noting the judgment is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. No additional factual findings or legal reasoning were included in the opinion provided.

The El Paso Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for PlainsCapital Bank in a trespass-to-try-title dispute. Appellants C.V.P.G. Family Trust and its trustee claimed ownership as successors to heirs of Joaquin Chapa, but PlainsCapital relied on a 2018 final judgment from a previous suit that adjudicated mineral title and declared hundreds of named and unknown Chapa heirs to have no ownership. The court held PlainsCapital met its burden to show a final judgment and that Appellants failed to raise a genuine fact issue that the prior judgment was void for lack of proper service or that C.V.P.G. lacked privity with the prior defendants.

The Stonewater Homeowners Association sued Luther and Laticia Evans for unpaid HOA fees. The parties presented an agreed judgment to the trial court, but at a hearing the Evanses (pro se) disavowed some terms, and the court orally modified the proposed agreement (reducing attorney’s fees, lowering interest, and striking foreclosure language) before signing the judgment. The HOA later filed a motion for new trial complaining the court lacked authority to alter the agreed judgment. The appeals court held the trial court acted within its authority because the modifications were made in open court after the Evanses did not accept the original terms and the HOA did not pursue separate enforcement remedies.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying appellant George Michael Welch attorney’s fees. Welch sold property to Felix and Summerlyn Lopez under an owner-financed contract. The Lopezes missed a May 1, 2023 payment but attempted to tender payment within the contract’s 91-day cure period; Welch rejected the tender and filed for foreclosure. The trial court found Welch prematurely sought foreclosure, unjustifiably refused payment, and reinstated the note upon payment of $22,221.92, denying fees because Welch was not the prevailing party. The appeals court held a temporary injunction and reinstatement did not confer prevailing-party status under section 38.001.

The court affirmed a trial-court judgment forfeiting $8,000 and a 2006 Harley-Davidson to the State under Texas civil forfeiture law. The owner, Chad Wade Spence, argued the trial court abused its discretion by forcing him to trial without material witnesses and that doing so violated his constitutional rights. The appellate court held Spence never properly requested subpoenas — he filed only informal witness lists and failed to complete the clerk’s subpoena request form — and therefore the trial court did not err in proceeding. The court also explained the right to compulsory process is a criminal right and does not apply in civil in rem forfeiture proceedings.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s decision upholding the Georgia Public Service Commission’s approval allowing Sandersville Railroad Company to condemn privately owned land to build a new spur. The Court found substantial evidence supporting the PSC’s factual findings that the spur would function as a channel of trade and aid the railroad’s operations, which qualifies as a statutory “public use.” The Court also rejected landowners’ complaints about subpoena enforcement and attorney-fee claims, and it upheld the superior court’s discretionary stay of condemnation proceedings pending appeal.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Steubenville Municipal Court's August 5, 2025 judgment awarding plaintiff-appellant Sol Rose III $683.50 plus 8% interest for conversion of personal property by Jefferson Behavioral Health System (J.B.H.S.) after its employee, Lou Stein, entered and discarded items from Rose’s unit. The trial court found Stein acted within the scope of his employment but without malice, so J.B.H.S. was liable under respondeat superior while Stein faced no individual or punitive damages. The court declined to award compensation for the decedent daughter’s urn and ashes because sentimental value is speculative and no market value testimony was offered.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Richland County Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division judgment that denied Heidi Back’s objections to a magistrate’s child support decision. The magistrate had designated Back the child-support obligor and ordered monthly support of $221.50. Back argued she was rushed at the July 24, 2025 hearing and prevented from presenting evidence about her inability to work and financial situation. The appellate court found she was sworn, had the chance to testify, was asked at the close if she had more to present, and did not provide the additional evidence at the hearing, so the trial court did not err in adopting the magistrate’s decision.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court judgment denying The Retail Property Trust’s request to have its Brea Mall property reassessed under Revenue and Taxation Code section 170(a)(1) based on COVID-19 related closures and restricted access. The assessor summarily denied the trust’s calamity applications, the Assessment Appeals Board upheld that denial, and the trial court concluded as a matter of law that section 170(a)(1) requires physical damage to property (direct or indirect) before reassessment relief is available. The appellate court agreed, finding neither government closure orders nor the virus itself constitute the required physical damage.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in a trespass to try title suit. Houston International Management & Trade, Inc. (HIM) claimed ownership of 23 commercial lots by adverse possession, but a jury found HIM had not possessed the property peaceably and adversely for the statutory period and instead found a verbal management agreement existed between HIM and the record owners (the Peacock parties). The court held there was some evidence supporting the jury’s findings, rejected HIM’s challenges to JNOV, new trial claims, and factual-sufficiency complaints, and affirmed the hold that the Peacock parties own the properties.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. The appeal challenged (1) the municipal court’s grant of leave to amend a counterclaim and transfer to common pleas court, (2) the common pleas court’s grant of additional time under Civ.R. 56(F) for discovery, and (3) denial of plaintiff-appellant Castro’s motion for summary judgment. The appellate court held the municipal court properly transferred the case because the amended counterclaim exceeded its $15,000 jurisdictional limit, the trial court did not abuse discretion in granting a Civ.R. 56(F) continuance, and genuine disputes of material fact (about the terms and performance of an oral agreement concerning sewer-line work) precluded summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal affirmed a trial-court order awarding attorney’s fees to respondent Ponani Sukumar after the court dismissed appellant Afshin Zand’s cross-complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. Zand argued the anti-SLAPP ruling and subsequent fee awards were void or procedurally defective, but the appellate panel held those contentions were meritless, largely barred by law of the case or forfeited, and improper collateral attacks. The panel also found the appeal frivolous and imposed $10,000 in sanctions payable to the clerk, granted Sukumar appellate fees under section 425.16(c)(1) to be fixed on remand, and remanded to determine certain fee amounts.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Portage County Court of Common Pleas judgment for plaintiff Fred Molai against the Standing Rock Cemetery Board of Trustees. After a jury awarded Molai $10,000 for breach of contract and $90,000 for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the trial court refused to instruct the jury on punitive damages and attorney fees based on R.C. 2744.05(A). The appellate court held Molai waived a facial constitutional challenge by not raising it below and found the statutory prohibition on punitive damages applicable to this public cemetery, so exclusion of that instruction was not an abuse of discretion.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Kirtland Country Club (KCC) in a suit by Sandy and Kevin Donovan challenging noise from KCC’s skeet shooting range. The Donovans alleged nuisance and negligence based on loud gunfire; KCC argued it was immune under R.C. 1533.85 because it substantially complied with the Division of Wildlife noise rules (Ohio Adm.Code 1501:31-29-03) and had a conditional use permit. The court held the statutory immunity and compliance with the administrative noise standard defeated the claims and found no genuine issue of negligence, so summary judgment for KCC was affirmed.

The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the Logan County Common Pleas Court's dismissal of Jeremy L. Larrick’s appeal of a workers’ compensation denial. Larrick appealed the Industrial Commission’s refusal to allow him to participate in the state fund after the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation denied his claim. The trial court ordered a more definite statement and dismissed his R.C. 4123.512 complaint because he never identified specific medical conditions that had been presented to the Commission. The appeals court held a claimant must identify the specific conditions raised administratively to proceed in common pleas court.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Stark County Probate Court’s finding that attorney Gerald B. Golub was in indirect civil contempt for failing to return $43,560 he paid himself in attorney fees from four related estates without prior probate-court approval. The appellate court held the contempt finding was proper because the May 15, 2024 order requiring return of the fees had been previously affirmed and disallowed for further review, and Golub made no effort to comply or seek court approval or other relief. The court concluded the probate judge did not abuse her discretion and that coercive remedies (periodic payments, execution) were appropriate.

The appellate court affirmed the Cook County circuit court’s dismissal of Neighbors Against a Marijuana Dispensary (NAMD)’s administrative-review complaint challenging the Chicago Zoning Board of Appeals’ grant of a special use permit to MariGrow to operate a cannabis dispensary. The court held NAMD lacked statutory standing because it failed to show any member owned property within 250 feet, had not entered an appearance and objected at the Board hearing, and the membership evidence NAMD sought to add was outside the administrative record. The court also found no due-process or equal-protection violation and upheld denial of NAMD’s untimely motion to amend.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court’s denial of J.D.’s motion to expunge records of his 2018 involuntary-commitment. The court held that the probate court lacked statutory or inherent authority to expunge those civil commitment records, and that prior appellate decision in the same case prevented relitigation of the inherent-authority argument. The court also rejected J.D.’s statutory claims: the five-day hearing requirement in R.C. 5122.141 did not trigger mandatory expungement because a hearing occurred within the deadline, and R.C. 2953.32 governs criminal-conviction expungement, not civil commitment records.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Xerion Advanced Battery Corp. and Northwoods Blvd., LLC and its denial of summary judgment for Certa Vandalia, LLC. The dispute concerned whether Northwoods’ late payment of a $2,000 cure fee allowed Certa to declare a default and terminate a purchase and sale agreement. The court concluded the contract was ambiguous about whether Certa had to give written notice before declaring a default for failure to pay the cure fee, and the parties’ prior conduct showed Certa had not consistently enforced strict, notice-free defaults. Because Certa failed to give the required notice, Northwoods did not materially breach and forfeiture would be inequitable.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed a Massillon Municipal Court judgment awarding Mancan, Inc. damages, interest, and attorney fees after Al’s Auto Services defaulted by not timely answering a breach-of-contract complaint. Mancan provided a temporary employee who was hired by Al’s Auto within a 180-day prohibited period; Mancan sued and secured a magistrate’s default judgment after a hearing. Al’s Auto did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision and failed to include a hearing transcript on appeal, so the appellate court reviewed only for plain error and found none, affirming the judgment.

The Texas Supreme Court granted mandamus relief directing the trial court to vacate its new-trial order and enter judgment on an 11–1 defense verdict in a medical-negligence suit. After a jury found Dr. Lapuerta not liable for Jose Torres’s eventual ray amputation, the trial court granted a new trial based on perceived error in a “loss of chance” jury instruction and possible juror confusion. The Supreme Court held the trial court misapplied controlling Texas law about loss-of-chance instructions, noted an improper juror letter that could have influenced the result, and concluded the record did not show the instruction probably caused an improper judgment.

The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Ghilotti Construction in a suit by ironworker Leonardo Cordero, who was injured while working for subcontractor Camblin Steel on a bridge project. The trial court granted summary judgment based on the Privette doctrine, which presumes a hirer of an independent contractor delegates responsibility for workplace safety to the contractor. The appellate court held California safety regulations (including Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 1711) do not create a nondelegable duty that defeats Privette, and Cordero failed to raise a triable issue that Ghilotti retained and exercised control over Camblin’s work in a way that affirmatively contributed to the injury.

The Court of Appeals of the Ninth District of Texas affirmed a county court’s final eviction judgment for landlord Matthew Twombly against pro se tenant Marcus Thirstrup. Thirstrup appealed the denial of his emergency motion for continuance filed the day of trial, claiming a medical inability to appear. The appellate court found the notice of appeal timely and held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the untimely motion because Thirstrup knew of his condition days earlier, failed to timely seek relief, did not contact the court, and did not appear at trial. A due-process challenge to the docket control order was not preserved for appeal.

The court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Rockport-Fulton Independent School District (RFISD). Don Jackson Construction appealed after RFISD sought a declaratory judgment that it retained governmental immunity from Don Jackson’s contract and related claims arising from Hurricane Harvey repairs arranged through the Regional Pool Alliance (RPA). The court held RFISD kept its immunity because there was no evidence that RFISD’s board or superintendent ever approved or voted to adopt the Interlocal Agreement or otherwise authorized the RPA to contract on RFISD’s behalf, so the contracts were not “properly executed” on RFISD’s behalf under Texas law.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment vacating an arbitration award in a workplace-injury dispute. Cynthia Love won a large award from an arbitrator after suing her former employer, Kaspar Ranch Hand Equipment, but the trial court vacated that award after Kaspar petitioned under the Federal Arbitration Act. The appellate court held vacatur was proper because the arbitrator failed to include factual findings and legal conclusions expressly required by the parties’ arbitration agreement, so she exceeded her contractual authority under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4). The court rejected Love’s other challenges and affirmed denial of attorney’s fees.

The Fifteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment that the federal Anti-Head Tax Act (AHTA), 49 U.S.C. § 40116(b)(4), preempts the Texas franchise tax as applied to American Airlines’ 2015 transportation revenues (baggage fees, passenger ticket sales, and freight). The trial court had awarded American a refund of $107,577.04 (plus interest) for baggage-fee tax and denied the Comptroller’s counterclaim to tax additional transportation revenues. The court held that, as applied to those revenues, the franchise tax functions as a tax on gross receipts and is therefore barred by the AHTA.

The First District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s rulings in favor of the lender (Cardinal) and the appraisal company (CFour). Gaston bought a house that had a septic tank and well, but the appraisal incorrectly listed public water and sewer. The trial court granted summary judgment to Cardinal and CFour and Cardinal later nonsuited its third-party and cross claims. The appellate court held Gaston failed to raise a fact issue on negligent misrepresentation because she could not justifiably rely on the appraisal: seller disclosures, FHA/HUD warnings, the appraisal’s stated intended user (the lender), and Gaston’s own home inspection undercut her reliance claim. The court also held the nonsuit was effective when filed and did not prejudice other parties.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court order admitting Kara Watson’s will to probate as a muniment of title. The will was offered about nine years after Kara’s 2014 death; an interested party argued the proponent was in default for failing to probate within the four-year statutory period. After a bench trial the court found the proponent, Kara’s daughter Mary Gale, exercised reasonable diligence and had valid excuses (including caregiving duties, serious health problems, and lack of awareness of the need to probate). The appellate court held the evidence was legally sufficient to support that finding and affirmed.