Court Filings

The First District of Texas consolidated two duplicate appeals filed after the trial court granted partial summary judgment and later severed the case, making that interlocutory order final and appealable. The court found the notices of appeal filed in two appellate dockets were identical and stemmed from the same October 2, 2025 severance order, so it granted the unopposed motion to consolidate and ordered the consolidated appeal to proceed under cause number 01-26-00052-CV. Because the appellate record is incomplete, the court declined to set a briefing schedule and dismissed the duplicate appellate docket 01-25-01093-CV.

The Court of Appeals considered an appeal from a no-evidence summary judgment in a multi-vehicle pileup case. The trial court granted summary judgment for the truck driver Mark Richard and his employer Millwood Trucking. The court held it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal as to Richard because he died before the judgment and no estate representative was substituted, so the judgment as to him is void and must be vacated. The court nonetheless reviewed and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Millwood Trucking, concluding the plaintiffs produced no evidence of causation or damages against the employer.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Reginald Charles Harvey’s appeal from various trial-court orders in a dispute with U.S. Nature-Invest Holdings, LLC because the notice of appeal was filed late. The underlying dispute began with the plaintiff’s declaratory judgment in January 2025 and multiple post-judgment motions by Harvey, the last of which the trial court denied on February 6, 2026. Harvey filed his notice of appeal on March 16, 2026 — 38 days after the February 6 order — and the Court of Appeals held it lacked jurisdiction because timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory under state law.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal in Phan v. Lee because appellants failed to file their enumerations of error and brief by the court-imposed deadline and did not request an extension. The appeal had been docketed March 6, 2026, and appellants were required to file within 20 days (by March 26, 2026). Citing Court of Appeals Rules 7 and 23(a) and precedent (Britton v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n), the court ordered dismissal on April 21, 2026 for noncompliance with filing requirements.

The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a trial-court award of $123,740.62 in attorney fees against plaintiff’s counsel in a medical-malpractice case. The trial court had found counsel abused discovery by failing to disclose a post-mortem pacemaker report and awarded fees under OCGA §§ 9-15-14(b) and 9-11-37(d). The appellate court held the report was discoverable and counsel had a duty to supplement, but concluded the § 9-11-37(d) award was invalid because the trial court lacked jurisdiction when it entered that portion of the sanction. The § 9-15-14(b) award was authorized but vacated because the court failed to explain how it calculated the exact fee amount, requiring remand for proper factfinding.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Smart Venture Capital’s appeal and ruled that the trial court erred in denying Smart Venture’s motion to set aside a default judgment. The Association sued the property owners and added Smart Venture (a secured creditor) but failed to effect service on Smart Venture’s registered agent. The court held the certified-mail evidence lacked a required postmark and there was no proof Smart Venture received or signed for the mailing, so service was not perfected and the default judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Real Dream Investors, LLC in a dispute over redemption of a tax deed purchased by Monarch Holdings Group, LLC. Monarch bought the property at a tax sale and published a barment notice giving April 16, 2022 as the redemption deadline; the Court held that state time-computation rules extended that deadline to Monday, April 18, 2022. Real Dream timely tendered a cashier’s check and deed on April 18 by attempted personal delivery and overnight mailing after Monarch could not accept delivery, and Monarch’s rejection waived any further tender, extinguishing its tax deed.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an Application for Discretionary Appeal filed by Staff Care 247, LLC (A26D0450) in a case identified by superior court number SPCV2400123. On April 21, 2026, the Court issued an order denying the application. The document is a short administrative order certifying that the discretionary appeal will not be heard by the Court of Appeals; it contains no further explanation or legal reasoning.

The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals reviewed a bench trial where Yangtze Railroad Fasteners sued Ohio Valley Trackwork (OVT) for breach of contract and unjust enrichment over about $40,000 for delivered railroad materials. The court found Yangtze proved the contract and delivery, but the trial court had concluded OVT was not liable because payment was misdirected to a third party after fraudulent email instructions. The appeals court held the trial court’s decision on breach of contract was against the manifest weight of the evidence, reversed that portion, and remanded for further proceedings while affirming the unjust enrichment judgment portion not appealed.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the jury verdict for Thomas Chevrolet in Scott Martin’s wrongful-termination suit. Martin alleged he was fired for refusing his supervisor’s instructions to commit insurance fraud. The jury found for the employer, and the trial court denied post-trial relief. On appeal Martin argued the court erred by (1) refusing a jury instruction on the “cat’s paw” theory, (2) denying a juror challenge for cause, and (3) excluding evidence and an email about other employees’ post-termination allegations against the supervisor. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the court’s jury instructions, juror inquiry, or relevancy and prejudice rulings on evidence, and affirmed judgment.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a per curiam order dated April 21, 2026, quashed a notice of appeal in a dispute between Paula Grapes (as executrix of an estate) and Linda J. Grapes. The Court concluded that the appealed order was not one of the types of final orders that may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court under 42 Pa.C.S. § 722 and the state appellate rules defining final orders. Because the appeal did not meet the statutory and rule-based criteria for direct review, the notice of appeal was dismissed.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a per curiam order on April 21, 2026 quashing a Notice of Appeal in a dispute involving Paula Grapes (as executrix of an estate) and Linda J. Grapes. The Court concluded the appeal could not proceed because the challenged order was not one of the types of final orders that may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court under state statute and appellate rules. The Court relied on 42 Pa.C.S. § 722 and Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341(b) in finding the appeal improper and therefore quashed the filing.

The Appellate Division, First Department reversed Supreme Court (Bronx County) and granted plaintiff Wilmington Savings Fund Society's motion to confirm a Referee's report and enter a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The court found the Referee's report was substantially supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff's corporate counsel for its loan servicer, which detailed the borrower's full payment history, established default as of October 1, 2008, and set forth the unpaid principal balance and accrued interest. The court relied on precedent permitting business records and servicer-calculated amounts when properly supported.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment to the Board of Managers of 388 West Broadway Condominium (388 West) in a slip-and-fall suit by Miguel Torres. The court held that 388 West did not meet its initial burden to show it bore no liability for a trip hazard formed where its sidewalk and an adjacent sidewalk met. Evidence showed 388 West or a prior owner had altered the sidewalk in 2002, creating a sloped ramp that encroached on the neighbor’s sidewalk, and the record did not eliminate the possibility that 388 West failed to keep the sidewalk abutting its property in a reasonably safe condition, making summary judgment inappropriate.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed two Supreme Court orders: one denying plaintiffs' motion to disqualify defendants' counsel, and the other granting defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The court held that the business judgment rule prevented judicial review of the board's actions because the complaint lacked sufficient allegations showing the board majority was not independent. The court also found plaintiffs failed to show a conflict of interest warranting counsel disqualification, noting a written waiver from the organization's executive director. Because dismissal rested on the business judgment rule, the court did not decide standing or pleading sufficiency.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment to Consolidated Edison and Verizon in a personal-injury suit after plaintiff's motorcycle encountered low-hanging wires. The court held that Con Ed could be liable because, under the Joint Use Agreement, it was responsible for maintaining the pole and had actual notice of the hazard from a morning complaint but did not inspect until hours after the crash. Verizon likewise failed to show it had no responsibility or lacked notice because ownership of the offending wires was disputed and its claimed defenses were unpreserved or unsupported.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed three Supreme Court orders in a dispute over property damage and toxic dust infiltration between owners of adjoining townhomes. The court upheld (1) defendants' leave to amend their answer to add a counterclaim for setoff based on plaintiffs' alleged delays and increased remediation costs, (2) denial of plaintiffs' motion to compel additional discovery related to that new counterclaim, and (3) denial of plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment seeking payment under a license agreement. The court found the counterclaim not frivolous, the discovery requests unnecessary to the setoff theory, and that disputed factual terms in the license agreement precluded summary judgment.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Supreme Court order denying defendant US Weatherseal Windows & Doors Operation Inc.'s motion to dismiss a negligence claim brought by condominium unit owners. The plaintiffs allege Weatherseal negligently designed, manufactured, installed, and attempted to repair windows, causing sash sealing failures and recurring water leaks that damaged interior property. The court held that, at this early stage, plaintiffs plausibly alleged an exception to the general rule barring third-party liability under contract because Weatherseal may have created or increased an unreasonable risk of harm, allowing the property-damage negligence claim to proceed.

The First Department affirmed a January 15, 2025 judgment granting Nationstar Mortgage LLC's motion to confirm a referee's report and for judgment of foreclosure and sale against Steve Vassi, and denying Vassi's cross-motion to toll interest. The court held that Vassi retained standing to challenge the foreclosure despite transferring the property because he remains liable on the note and potentially subject to a deficiency judgment. On the merits, the court found plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304's notice and mailing requirements and that the referee's report was supported by admissible business-record evidence, so confirmation and foreclosure were proper.

The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court’s orders granting summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claims against both defendants and granting conditional contractual indemnification to landlord Abeken against tenant Blended Family. The court held that the technician’s work — drilling two holes to run a cable between ceilings and rooms — did not constitute construction-related activity or an alteration that would trigger Labor Law § 240(1). The court also rejected the landlord’s argument that Public Service Law § 228 barred the claim, finding that the worker was a telecommunications, not cable television, installer. Questions of fact about the building ladder precluded summary judgment on common-law negligence, and the lease indemnity clause was enforceable but conditional.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Supreme Court's order dismissing the remaining causes of action against several defendants in a fraud and contract dispute arising from a double sale of real property. The court held it lacked general jurisdiction over certain out-of-state defendants, applied New York's procedural law (including its six-year statute of limitations) to bar a statute-of-limitations defense based on Ohio law, but found the fraud, aiding-and-abetting, and certain contract-based claims were insufficiently pleaded or duplicative and thus properly dismissed. Because dismissal was proper on those grounds, other defenses were not reached.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Supreme Court order denying Sompo America Insurance Company's motion to dismiss a fire-damage complaint brought by 120 Main Hotel LLC. The insurer argued an exclusion for damage to vacant or unoccupied premises barred coverage. The appellate court held Sompo failed to prove the exclusion applied because factual disputes remain about the property's condition, whether covered hotel property adequate for operation was present, and whether the plaintiff was conducting customary business operations shortly before the fire. The court also struck new arguments raised for the first time in reply.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal issued a short per curiam decision affirming a nonfinal ruling from the Circuit Court for Brevard County in case number 2019-CA-052645. The appeal was brought by William Ivan (individually and as trustee) against Jeff Holder and Andrew Holder (and nominal parties). The appellate court, without published opinion, affirmed the lower court's ruling. No reasoning or detailed findings are included in the document beyond the affirmance and the judges' concurrence.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a case brought by Si’leshia Green as parent and natural guardian of a minor against the Flagler County School Board. The appeal arose from the circuit court in Flagler County (case 18-2023-CA-99). The opinion is per curiam, issued April 21, 2026, and provides no published reasoning beyond affirmance. The panel of Judges Lambert, Edwards, and Harris concurred. The mandate is subject to any timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court ruling in a dispute between policyholder Norma Tamburini and Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The opinion is per curiam and contains only the single-word disposition “AFFIRMED,” indicating the appellate court upheld the circuit court’s judgment. No published reasoning or opinion text appears in the document beyond the affirmation and the panel concurrence, so the court relied on the record and the circuit court’s decision without issuing additional analysis in this entry.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a civil case between appellant Britne White and appellee Fidus Roofing & Construction, LLC. The appeal arose from a judgment or order entered by the Circuit Court for St. Johns County. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, with the panel unanimously concurring and affirmed the lower court's ruling without published opinion or extended reasoning in the document provided.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a civil case between borrower Peter A. Liggatt (appellant) and Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (appellee). The appellate panel issued a brief per curiam decision, noting the appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County and concluding that the lower court's ruling should stand. No extended opinion or reasoning was published in the document; the court simply entered judgment affirming the lower tribunal's decision and the three judges concurred.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Edward and Roberta Kemp from a Lee County circuit court decision involving Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, simply stating the judgment was affirmed. No written opinion with reasoning was provided in the document; the court's summary disposition affirms the lower court's ruling without published explanation. The panel of Judges Stargel, Gannam, and Pratt concurred.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of class certification in a wage-and-hour suit by Adam Martinez against Sierra Lifestar, Inc. Martinez alleged Lifestar excluded nondiscretionary bonuses (notably EMS Week bonuses) when calculating the regular rate of pay, underpaying overtime, double time, and meal/rest premiums for about 135 employees. The trial court denied certification because it found Martinez’s claim was not typical, reasoning he might be uniquely subject to a defense that his EMS Bonus was a gift or discretionary. The appellate court held that defense was not unique to Martinez and remanded for further class-certification proceedings.

The Court of Appeals (Eighth District, El Paso) dismissed Boss Lady Pub and Maria Elena Olvera’s appeal because they filed a notice of appeal but did not pay required appellate filing fees or show entitlement to proceed without payment. The clerk warned them that failure to pay by a specified deadline could result in dismissal; they did not respond or pay. The court therefore dismissed the appeal and any pending motions as moot on April 20, 2026.