Court Filings

The Court of Appeals reversed the Court of Claims and remanded for further proceedings in a public-records dispute. Michael Newman sought 13 categories of records from the Greater Columbus Arts Council (GCAC) and its Film Columbus division. The Court of Claims had granted disclosure for three financial items under R.C. 149.431 but denied the rest after finding GCAC was not the functional equivalent of a public office under the Public Records Act. The appellate court held the lower court failed to adequately weigh the totality of the Oriana House factors (especially government involvement) and remanded for a fuller functional-equivalency analysis, while affirming the ruling on annual reports as non-R.C. 149.431 records.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice in this concurring and dissenting opinion would reverse the Commonwealth Court’s ruling that West Chester Borough’s stormwater ‘‘stream protection fee’’ is a tax exempting the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (West Chester University). The justice reasons the University voluntarily uses the Borough stormwater system, receives a discrete benefit from that use, and therefore could be required to pay a fee rather than be immune as a sovereign entity. Because the Commonwealth Court did not analyze whether the charge is proportional to the benefit received, the justice would remand for further factual development on proportionality.

The Appellate Division, Third Department reversed part of a Court of Claims judgment and held that the State can be liable for the alleged rectal intrusion by correction officers. Claimant had been allowed to file a late claim for assault and battery but the Court of Claims declined to consider sexualized conduct under the law of the case. This Court found that the law of the case did not bind it and that the alleged rectal intrusion was sufficiently connected to officers' duties to survive the late‑claim screening and to support vicarious liability. The case is remitted for recalculation of damages.

The Appellate Division reversed part of a Supreme Court judgment in a proceeding to confirm a master arbitration award where Integrated Specialty ASC, LLC sought no-fault benefits and attorneys' fees. The court held the trial court erred by awarding only $1,000 under the no-fault fee regulation and by failing to award additional fees for the CPLR article 75 confirmation proceeding. The appellate court awarded the regulatory maximum fee of $1,360 and remanded for the trial court to determine the amount of additional attorneys' fees under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4) and then enter an amended judgment.

The Appellate Division reviewed a mortgage foreclosure where defendant Cheryl Hunte defaulted and a referee's report and judgment of foreclosure and sale were entered. The court dismissed Hunte's direct appeal from an interim order as moot but reversed the foreclosure judgment insofar as it depended on presumed valid service of process. Because Hunte submitted a sworn denial with supporting facts sufficient to rebut the process server's affidavit, the court remitted the case for a hearing to determine whether she was properly served, and ordered a new determination afterward on confirmation of the referee's report and the motion to vacate the earlier default judgment.

The Illinois Appellate Court (Third District) answered two certified questions about the Biometric Information Privacy Act exemption for government contractors. The court held that the exemption does not require a contractor to work exclusively for a state agency or local government. However, the exemption applies only when the contractor’s challenged conduct occurred within the scope of the contractor’s governmental work—i.e., when the contractor was acting as a contractor for the government. The court therefore rejected a purely temporal reading that would exempt all conduct during the existence of a government contract.

The First Department reviewed a motion in a class-action landlord-tenant case where defendants sought disqualification of plaintiffs' counsel for an alleged conflict arising from counsel's prior representation of several former building owners. The appellate court held that the trial court erred in finding defendants had waived the conflict claim, and concluded the record was incomplete to decide disqualification. The court therefore ordered plaintiffs' counsel to produce itemized files related to the prior representation so defendants can assess whether an actual conflict exists, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's denial of immediate disqualification and dismissal.

The Illinois Appellate Court (3rd District) answered a certified question about whether a litigant granted a full fee waiver under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 298 is also entitled to a waiver of court reporter transcript costs. The court held that Rule 298 incorporates the waiver terms of 735 ILCS 5/5-105(a)(1), and following the Second District’s reasoning in In re Marriage of Main, concluded that transcript costs necessary for an appeal fall within the waivable "fees, costs, and charges." The case is remanded for the trial court to identify which transcripts are necessary and to provide them to the appellant without charge.

The Texas Supreme Court granted two petitions for review in competing claims over a 1933 deed that reserved an “undivided one-fourth of the usual one eighth” royalty. The court held the court of appeals erred in declining to address the presumed-grant doctrine on jurisdictional grounds, vacated the court of appeals’ merits decision, and remanded for reconsideration of both deed construction and the presumed-grant doctrine. The Court emphasized that the presumed-grant issue was fairly included in the permissive appeal and instructed the court of appeals to resolve both paths without expressing a view on the ultimate ownership outcome.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted the appellee's motion to remand the case Downey Trees, Inc. v. Stephens to the State Court of Forsyth County. The clerk was ordered to remand the matter, and the order allows either party to file a new notice of appeal within 30 days after resolution of a pending motion to enforce settlement. The decision is procedural and simply returns the case to the state court for further proceedings rather than addressing the underlying merits.

The Court of Appeal granted a peremptory writ directing the Contra Costa County Superior Court to vacate its minute order that denied a petition for mandate brought by four teachers challenging West Contra Costa Unified School District’s staffing practices. The trial court had denied the writ based on the District’s claim it was impossible to fully staff classrooms with credentialed teachers. The appellate court held the District failed to prove it had exhausted statutory procedures (including seeking waivers from state entities) before asserting impossibility, so the defense was premature and the denial of the writ was reversed for entry of an order denying the petition.

The Fourth Court of Appeals granted the parties' joint motion to set aside the trial court's final judgment and remanded the case for entry of a judgment consistent with the parties' settlement agreement. The appellate court vacated the existing judgment without addressing the merits and directed the trial court to render the agreed judgment. Because the settlement did not allocate appellate costs, the court taxed costs of appeal against the appellants.

The Court of Appeals granted the appellant's motion to remand so the trial court can consider a request to incorporate records from two separate cases into the record of this appeal. Previously, the court denied the appellant's motions to supplement the record because there was no trial-court order adopting or incorporating the other cases' records into this case. The remand allows the trial court to rule on a motion to incorporate those documents; if the trial court grants it and the appellant timely files a new notice of appeal, the matter will be re-docketed as a new appeal after the record is transmitted.

The Court of Appeals considered an appeal from a trial court order that granted Tonya Hill’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed Steven and Rayma Benedict’s petition to modify the parent-child relationship. Because the trial court’s order did not address Hill’s separate request for attorney’s fees and expressly stated it was making no ruling on relief requested by Hill, the appellate court found the order’s finality ambiguous. The appellate court therefore abated and remanded the case to the trial court for clarification or entry of a final order and set a deadline for supplemental records to be filed in the appellate court.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals reviewed Husband Darrell L. Nichols Jr.’s appeal from a Pike County domestic relations judgment resolving competing post-divorce motions. The court overruled Husband’s challenges to the denial of a continuance and to alleged improper service, finding service at the 2060 Schuster Road address and Husband’s participation made the hearing proper. However, the court concluded the trial court exceeded its authority by revaluing and redistributing two specific vehicles (a 2007 Toyota Tacoma and a 2005 Subaru Impreza) after the original decree had ordered all listed vehicles sold and proceeds divided. The judgment is therefore reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings on those vehicles.