Court Filings

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute between Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc. (doing business as JET ICU) and two Blue Cross entities. The appeal challenged the circuit court's judgment, but the appellate court, in a per curiam opinion, concluded that the lower-court ruling should stand and issued an affirmance without published opinion. The panel unanimously agreed to affirm, with no extended written analysis included in the opinion provided.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, affirmed a county court decision in an appeal brought by Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc. (d/b/a Jet ICU) against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company (d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana). The opinion is per curiam, short, and simply states the judgment was affirmed without published reasoning in this entry. The panel of judges Lucas (C.J.), Kelly, and Smith concurred. The decision was filed April 17, 2026.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling in a case where Hydro-Dyne Engineering, Inc. appealed from a Pinellas County circuit court decision involving Michael Williams, Scott Griffith, Cornerstone Mechanical, LLC, and Cornerstone H20, LLC. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. The appellate court issued a one-line per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment, with three judges concurring. No further opinion or reasoning was provided in the published docket entry.

The appellate court reviewed a pro se appeal by Norman Chris Hrabovsky from an order of the Pinellas County Circuit Court involving Trask Daigneault, LLP and two individual defendants. After considering the parties' submissions, the Second District affirmed the lower court's decision. The per curiam opinion provides no extended factual or legal analysis in the published entry, simply announcing the affirmance and noting concurrence by the three judges. No further explanation of the circuit court's reasoning or the issues decided is included in the short published entry.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The appeal was taken by Patrick Gilles from an order of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, presided over by Judge Lindsay Alvarez. Both parties appeared pro se. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision without published opinion and the panel of judges concurred.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision in a dispute involving members and the estate of Emma Jean Baldwin. The appeal was brought pro se by Chad R. Baldwin against the estate and several relatives. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion stating only 'Affirmed' without published reasoning, and the panel of three judges concurred. The decision leaves the lower court's judgment intact and ends this stage of appellate review.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment in a dispute between Dr. Gary Boraks, LLC (as assignee of Runnell D. Curry) and the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA). The court held that FIGA is not generally liable for attorney’s fees under section 627.428 and may only be assessed fees under the limited exception in section 631.70 when FIGA affirmatively denies a covered claim other than by delay. The court relied on statutory text and precedent limiting FIGA’s obligations to policy limits (up to statutory caps), interest as provided, and attorney’s fees only in that narrow circumstance.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment rejecting challenges by Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association and Rincon Valley Mobilehome Park. Western argued (1) that during a declared state of emergency the statutory definition of “rental price” allows routine annual CPI rent increases despite Penal Code § 396’s 10% cap, and (2) that after the emergency owners may “recoup” denied CPI increases by resetting future baseline rents. The court held the statute must be read to fix the baseline rental amount as of the emergency declaration, so the 10% cap applies, and Santa Rosa’s rent ordinance does not compel the post-emergency recoupment Western sought.

The Texas Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s default judgment against appellant Nicholas Lind in a suit by investors M3 Fort Worth Developer, LLC and The YoungESTone, LLC. M3 and YO invested in residential development projects run by Serene and Windridge, paid management and construction fees, and sued after projects stalled. Lind was served with the original petition but not the first amended petition; the trial court entered default judgment and later a damages judgment. The appellate court held lack of re-service was not error because the amended petition did not seek more onerous relief, and any challenge to sufficiency of evidence failed because securities claims under the Texas Securities Act do not require proof of loss causation.

The Court of Appeals affirmed a bench-trial judgment awarding Douglas Fuhrman $187,244 plus $30,782.58 in attorney’s fees after he sued his ex-wife, Nancy Fuhrman, for breach of the 2020 agreed divorce decree’s tax-allocation provisions. The trial court found the decree was a valid contract, Douglas performed (Deloitte prepared and filed the 2020 returns), Nancy breached by failing to pay her allocated share, and Douglas suffered damages. The appellate court held the record (tax returns, expert testimony, decree language) provided legally and factually sufficient support for the trial court’s findings and legal conclusions.

The Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s temporary injunction preventing four former CRNA employees from providing CRNA services within 20 miles of any location where they worked for their former employer, Anesthesia Associates, for three years. Anesthesia Associates sued after the CRNAs resigned and began working for a competitor at a local hospital, alleging breach of noncompetition and irreparable harm. The appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion: the employer showed a legitimate protectable interest (goodwill, specialized training, credentialing), probable success on the claim at trial, and probable irreparable injury that could not be adequately remedied by money damages.

Appellants Mark Goloby and Richard Vega sued Harris County commissioners, contending Commissioner Adrian Garcia resigned his county office when the Commissioners Court appointed him to the Gulf Coast Protection District (GCPD) board. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the Commissioners Court’s appointment of one of its own members to the GCPD was void under the common-law self-appointment branch of the incompatibility doctrine, so Garcia never lawfully became a GCPD director and therefore did not resign his commissioner seat. Because Garcia remained an official-capacity county officer, governmental immunity barred the claims and the dismissal with prejudice was proper.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the City of Houston’s summary-judgment motion asserting governmental immunity after a parking-garage collision between a City-owned truck and the plaintiff’s car. The City argued its employee was off-duty and not acting in the course of employment, but the court held the undisputed fact that a City employee was driving a City-owned vehicle gave rise to a rebuttable presumption she was acting within the scope of employment. The City’s affidavit and records were conclusory and failed to conclusively rebut that presumption, so a fact issue remained.

The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of U.S. Bank’s motion for new trial and upheld the default judgment in favor of Business Unlimited. Business Unlimited sued to quiet title after a lien sale and obtained a default judgment when U.S. Bank failed to answer. U.S. Bank sought a new trial under the three-part Craddock standard for setting aside defaults, claiming an administrative mistake and asserting meritorious defenses. The appellate court found U.S. Bank proved mistake but failed to adequately set up factual support for meritorious defenses, so the Craddock test was not satisfied and the denial of a new trial was not an abuse of discretion.

The court affirmed the trial court’s default judgment against U.S. Bank (USB) in a quiet-title action because USB failed to prove entitlement to a new trial under the Craddock standard. USB was served but did not answer, a default judgment was entered, and USB later sought a new trial supported by a late affidavit from a bank vice president. The court held the affidavit was conclusory and lacked personal knowledge about the registered agent’s handling of service, so USB did not show its failure to answer was an accident rather than intentional or due to conscious indifference.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment for attorneys Leslie Hyman and Pullman, Cappuccio & Pullen, LLP in Susan Harriman’s legal-malpractice suit. Harriman sued claiming the lawyers mishandled a 2017 hearing to unseal certain sealed court records and that their actions forced her into an unfavorable settlement in an underlying defamation case. The appellees moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment arguing Harriman offered no proof that their conduct proximately caused her damages. The appellate court held Harriman produced only speculation and no more than a scintilla of evidence on proximate cause, so summary judgment was proper.

The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment committing Edward Lincoln Goff as a sexually violent predator under the Texas SVP Act. On appeal Goff argued the evidence was legally insufficient to show he currently suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to commit predatory sexual violence. The appellate court reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury, relied chiefly on the jury’s credibility determinations, and found the expert testimony (diagnosing pedophilic disorder and identifying risk factors) plus Goff’s history of multiple child-victim offenses, continued offending after detection, lack of insight, and certain coercive acts supported the jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court affirmed the trial court’s final divorce decree enforcing a mediated settlement agreement (MSA) that divided the marital estate. The wife, Soo Jin, argued the MSA should be set aside because she signed under duress and did not sign voluntarily, citing health issues, language barriers, a panic attack, and pressure from counsel and the mediator. The appellate court held the MSA met Texas Family Code §6.602 requirements and found competent evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that Soo Jin’s testimony did not show fraud, coercion, or incapacity that would void the agreement. The judgment enforcing the MSA was affirmed.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Tajul Islam’s motion to continue a domestic-relations hearing and related rulings. Islam’s counsel was unavailable due to a criminal trial and Islam argued this denied him counsel and due process when the hearing proceeded in his absence. The appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the late continuance request, that no constitutional right to counsel existed in this civil contempt/post-decree proceeding, and that Islam failed to show cumulative error or timely objections. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights and awarding permanent custody of twin infants A.N. and L.N. to Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (CCDCFS). The agency had sought permanent custody in its original complaint after the children were removed at birth because of Mother’s unresolved mental-health problems, inconsistent engagement with services, and prior involuntary termination of parental rights to older siblings. The appellate court found the juvenile court’s findings supported by clear and convincing evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s award of attorney fees to Citywide RX after Citywide prevailed on contract claims against multiple nursing-home defendants, including Selfridge Leasing. Citywide sought $434,252.95 in fees (primarily for a New York law firm plus local counsel); the trial court found Citywide the prevailing party under the contract’s fee provision, reviewed affidavits and itemized bills, and held the rates and hours reasonable. On appeal Selfridge argued the fees were excessive and duplicative, but the court rejected new arguments raised for the first time on appeal and found no genuine issue of material fact.

The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Pike County Common Pleas Court's denial of a motion to set aside a sheriff's sale of real property sold for delinquent taxes. Gary Damron argued he (and other known heirs) did not receive proper notice because the Notice of Sale was sent by email to his then-attorney during the holiday period rather than by regular mail. The appellate court held service on Damron's attorney by e-mail complied with Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(f), was complete upon transmission, and was reasonably calculated to provide notice, so the trial court did not err in denying the motion to set aside the sale.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Supreme Court's April 24, 2024 order denying Feifei Gu's motions to vacate a prior July 28, 2023 dismissal and for sanctions, while noting the court had effectively granted leave to reargue and then adhered to its prior dismissal. The court found the complaint was properly dismissed because Gu failed to file the mandatory notice of claim under General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i before suing the District Attorney's Office and two prosecutors, a defect that deprives the court of jurisdiction. The court also rejected Gu's fraud and misconduct claims as conclusory and unsupported.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Supreme Court's order granting plaintiff Lloyd's partial summary judgment that defendant Southwest Marine must defend Lloyd's insured, Arsenal Scaffold Inc., as an additional insured in an underlying personal-injury action and reimburse Lloyd's defense costs. The court held that facts known to defendant created a reasonable possibility of coverage, so the duty to defend was triggered even though defendant's named insured (JGR Services) was not a direct defendant in the underlying suit. The court rejected Southwest Marine's contrary arguments and affirmed the denial of its cross-motion for summary judgment.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Court of Claims' dismissal of Ernestiaze Moore's claim against the State under the Adult Survivors Act. Moore alleged two sexual assaults by a correction officer and originally filed dates in 2022, but counsel later disclosed the correct dates were in 2023. The Court of Claims found the incorrect year was a jurisdictional defect under Court of Claims Act § 11(b) that could not be cured by amendment, and therefore denied Moore's motion to amend and dismissed the claim. The appellate court concluded the statutory filing requirements must be strictly construed and affirmed.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Supreme Court's December 12, 2024 order dismissing the amended complaint against the Unified Court System (UCS). Plaintiffs — four individuals and Disability Rights New York (DRNY) — challenged SCPA article 17-a and UCS's role, alleging ADA and Rehabilitation Act violations and other claims. The court held DRNY lacked organizational standing because it did not show an injury-in-fact from its advocacy expenditures, and that the individual plaintiffs' ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims were time-barred under New York's three-year personal-injury statute, with accrual at the dates they were placed under guardianship. The court rejected continuing-violation and unpreserved equitable-tolling arguments.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed a Supreme Court judgment awarding Ellis Hospital $5,048.55 plus costs for unpaid medical bills after a summary judgment motion. The hospital showed it provided services, produced an itemized bill showing the outstanding deductible, and submitted a services agreement signed by the patient’s husband acknowledging financial responsibility. The court found the patient failed to raise a triable issue of fact — her claims about not receiving bills, lack of authorization, and challenge to the contract were not supported by evidence — so summary judgment was properly granted.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision and ordered judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint with costs. The plaintiff, Mega Beverage Redemption Center, appealed from a lower-court ruling but failed to show that its appeal to the Appellate Division did not raise questions of fact or that the Appellate Division made the specific CPLR 5615 findings required when factual questions exist. Because those statutory prerequisites were absent, the Court concluded it was bound to affirm and enter judgment absolute dismissing the complaint.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court judgment in a case brought by appellant Luiz Silva against Frances Von Holten, Joseph Von Holten, Vinicius Lara, and Vizzion Construction, LLC. The appeal was decided by a three-judge panel and the court issued a brief per curiam affirmance citing Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). No appellee brief or appearance was filed. The decision is final subject to any timely motion authorized by the appellate rules for rehearing or clarification.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling in a dispute between Jose and Nancy Quinones (appellants) and Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (appellee). The per curiam opinion, issued April 16, 2026, simply states 'AFFIRMED' without additional explanation in the published text. The appeal arose from the circuit court in Duval County, and the appellate panel—Chief Judge Jay and Judges Lambert and Maciver—concurred in the decision to affirm.