Court Filings

The Texas Third Court of Appeals denied a petition asking the court to issue a writ of mandamus to control proceedings in a Travis County case. The court also lifted a previously entered stay of the underlying trial-court proceedings. The court issued a short memorandum opinion denying relief under the appellate rules and returning the case to the trial-court process, without further comment or substantive analysis in this brief disposition.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal filed by Rikayat Lawal in case number A26D0407, seeking review of a trial court matter assigned LC number 25DD000869. The court issued a short order on April 9, 2026, denying the application for discretionary appeal. No further reasoning or analysis is provided in the document; it is a ministerial denial entry from the Clerk of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

The Georgia Court of Appeals issued an order on April 9, 2026 denying an emergency motion by Westchester Place Homeowners Association and related parties. The appellants had asked for a supersedeas (stay) of injunctive relief and for the appointment of a receiver while their appeal is pending. The court refused those emergency requests, leaving the lower-court injunctive relief and the absence of a receiver in place pending further proceedings.

The Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, denied Joy Cherie Kilgore’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking relief related to an underlying case in Bexar County District Court. The court considered Kilgore’s petition and an incorporated emergency motion for temporary relief filed April 6, 2026, and concluded she was not entitled to mandamus relief under the Texas appellate rules. Because the requested extraordinary relief was denied, the court also denied the emergency motion as moot. No written opinion explaining detailed reasoning was issued—this is a brief disposition under the appellate rules.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for an interlocutory appeal in the case Arthur Sloman et al. v. Gwenetta Powers (LC No. ST22CV0118) and denied the application. The order is a brief ministerial ruling from the Court's Clerk dated April 7, 2026, and contains no further explanation of the court's reasoning or the underlying dispute. The denial means the moving party will not receive immediate appellate review of the trial court's interlocutory order and must proceed in the trial court or seek other appellate remedies allowed by law.

The Court of Appeals denied Clarence Cowart's emergency motion asking this Court to order the trial court clerk to immediately transmit the trial record or to certify the cause of delay. Cowart's appeal from a dispossessory order was not docketed because the transcript was not timely transmitted. The Court held that issues about delay and possible dismissal under OCGA § 5-6-48(c) must be decided first by the trial court after notice and hearing, so Cowart cannot bypass those proceedings by seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.

The Washington Supreme Court answered a certified question from the Ninth Circuit about whether a consumer who buys and keeps a product at its advertised price but was induced to buy it by a false representation about the product’s former price has a cognizable injury under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The Court held that such a buyer does not allege an injury to “business or property” under the CPA when the purchased, fungible product conforms to its advertised qualities and the purchaser paid the advertised price. The Court explained that mere disappointed expectations or being tricked into buying an item that is not objectively less valuable do not establish CPA injury, though other theories (e.g., objectively inferior goods) could.