Court Filings

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed a nonfinal trial-court order in a landlord-tenant dispute. The court affirmed the portions of the order that related to the landlord’s summary proceedings for possession, but dismissed the appeal as to the trial court’s determination on a tenants’ motion to determine rents for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The panel held that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) limits interlocutory appeals to orders determining the right to immediate possession, and an order resolving rents is not an enumerated, appealable nonfinal order.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of Dawon’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration in a construction-payment dispute. The parties had a detailed January 2024 service agreement that included a broad, surviving arbitration clause. In August 2024 they signed a short one-page follow-up agreement about cost handling and scheduling that did not address dispute resolution and did not supplant the original contract. The appellate court held the second agreement did not supersede the first, so the original arbitration clause remained enforceable and dismissal and arbitration were required.

Justice Sullivan dissents from the Court’s interpretation of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 18.001. He would hold that when a defendant serves a controverting affidavit the statute’s hearsay exception for medical-expense affidavits is defeated as to the entire affidavit, not just the particular line items the counteraffidavit disputes. Because the defendant served a controverting affidavit here, Ortiz could not rely on her medical-affidavits alone and the trial court properly denied a new trial on damages. Sullivan argues the statute’s plain text refers to "affidavits," so its all-or-nothing approach must be applied even if it creates odd or inefficient results.

The Texas Supreme Court held that when a party uses the pretrial affidavit process in Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 18.001 to prove medical expenses, only those specific items or charges that are actually controverted by a compliant counteraffidavit lose the statute’s evidentiary effect. Unchallenged portions of an initial affidavit remain competent evidence and may be submitted to the factfinder. The court reversed the court of appeals and remanded because the trial court erred by excluding entire medical-cost affidavits and counteraffidavits even though only portions were controverted, which deprived the claimant of admissible evidence of certain medical expenses.

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 Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the county court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant Eric Babcock in a defamation suit brought by neighbor and HOA board member Gregory Lattimer. The appellate court held that disputed factual issues remain about whether Babcock reasonably relied on unnamed government sources when he told HOA members that Lattimer threatened to shoot him and was under investigation for a hate crime. Because credibility and verification issues create jury questions under the current summary-judgment standard, the court remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Sixth District reversed and remanded a trial-court final judgment awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to DidierGroup, LLC because that fee judgment was based on an underlying final judgment that this Court had already reversed in a prior opinion. The panel held that when the foundation judgment is reversed or vacated, any dependent award of fees and costs must likewise be reversed. The court remanded without prejudice to allow either party to seek attorneys’ fees after the trial proceedings conclude consistent with the mandate.

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 reviewed whether the six-year construction statute of repose (RCW 4.16.300-.310) bars estate claims by the executor of Lee Hetterly, who developed fatal mesothelioma decades after working at ARCO’s Cherry Point refinery. The court held that claims arising from Brand Insulations’ construction work installing asbestos-containing insulation during refinery construction are time-barred by the statute of repose, but claims premised on Brand’s role as a product seller or negligent supplier are not barred. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that division of claims.

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 Court of Appeals reviewed five consolidated appeals arising from a Fulton County trial court’s appointment of a special master to manage pretrial matters in mass-tort litigation. Plaintiffs challenged the appointment, the denial of their indigency claims without a hearing, the contempt finding for nonpayment of special-master fees, and the order requiring payment of pro-rata fees. Defendants challenged the trial court’s imposition of joint-and-several liability for payment of the special-master fees. The appellate court affirmed the appointment in part, vacated the contempt ruling for lack of the required hearing on indigency, remanded for further proceedings, and vacated the joint-and-several-liability provision in the appointment order.

The Court of Appeals reversed a trial-court award of $14,525 in attorney fees to a third party, Yaarit Silverstone, in a garnishment proceeding. SMS Financial Recovery Services had appealed the fee award under OCGA § 9-15-14 after the trial court found SMS’s post-judgment motions and discovery were frivolous or for harassment. The appellate court held that OCGA § 9-15-14 authorizes fee awards only in "civil actions" and must be strictly construed; garnishment is a special statutory proceeding, not a civil action, so § 9-15-14 does not authorize fees in this context. Because of that legal conclusion, the court reversed the award and did not decide the other claimed errors.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss in a negligence suit filed by a mother on behalf of her burned six-year-old son against his teacher, another teacher/paraprofessional, the school nurse, the principal, and the Cobb County School District. The defendants moved to dismiss under OCGA § 9-11-12(b)(1), asserting sovereign and official immunity and submitted affidavits. The trial court treated the motion as converted to summary judgment because affidavits were attached and delayed ruling on immunity. The appeals court held that attaching affidavits did not automatically convert a jurisdictional immunity motion into summary judgment and remanded for the trial court to consider the immunity defenses properly.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted an application for an interlocutory appeal in the case KLS Heating & Air, Inc. v. Juliette Hamler Locke, et al. The court ordered that the appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the April 30, 2026 order and directed the clerk of the state court to include this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals. This is a procedural interlocutory-order grant allowing the appeal to proceed before final judgment.

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 Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of a motion to enforce a settlement agreement and remanded for further proceedings. The trial court had announced a settlement at an on-the-record hearing in which it expressly stated it would retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, but its subsequent journal entry omitted that retention of jurisdiction and did not incorporate the settlement terms. The appellate court held the journal entry did not reflect what occurred in open court and directed the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry conforming the record to the hearing so the court can enforce the settlement terms.

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 court dismissed relator Atravion Preston’s mandamus action seeking public records from the Lorain Correctional Institution and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. The magistrate concluded, and the court adopted that recommendation, that Preston failed to file with his complaint the written affirmation required by amended R.C. 149.43(C)(2). Because the statute mandates dismissal if that affirmation is not filed, the court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss, denied as moot the motion to strike, and dismissed the action without reaching the merits or statutory-damages arguments.

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 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.