Court Filings

The First District of Texas dismissed Kenneth Steven Isbell’s appeal from a Harris County district court because he failed to pay or arrange payment for the clerk’s record fee and did not respond to the court’s notice that the appeal was subject to dismissal. The court cited Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requiring payment or arrangement and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, also denying as moot any pending motions. The decision was issued as a brief memorandum opinion by a three-justice panel.

The First District of Texas dismissed Dominique Cunningham’s appeal of the trial court’s dismissal of her suit against Justice of the Peace Steve Duble because Cunningham repeatedly failed to file an appellate brief that complied with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court struck her noncompliant briefs, gave her opportunities and extensions to file a corrected brief, and found her March 16, 2026 submission still deficient in essential content and formatting. Because she failed to cure the briefing defects, the court struck the corrected brief and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.

The Texas Court of Appeals dismissed Nikki Arnold’s appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 of Travis County because she failed to file her appellate brief. The brief was due February 11, 2026; the court notified Arnold on February 18 that she had until March 2 to respond or face dismissal for want of prosecution. No brief or extension motion was filed, so the appellate court dismissed the appeal under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals dismissed Jillian Warren’s appeal for want of prosecution because she failed to file her appellant brief, which was originally due March 2, 2026, and did not respond to the court’s notice requiring a satisfactory response by March 23, 2026. The court invoked Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b) and entered dismissal on April 7, 2026. No substantive merits decision was reached because the appeal was dismissed for procedural noncompliance.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of Spectrum and its award of prejudgment interest, but vacated and remanded solely to recalculate the prejudgment interest start date. Spectrum demanded payment of the fixed arbitration award by letter on December 9, 2020, and later sought confirmation when Amendia did not pay. The court held Spectrum’s demand (and its later oral request at a 2022 hearing) sufficed as a timely request for prejudgment interest under Georgia law, so interest must be awarded; however, interest should run from the expiration of the payment deadline set in the demand letter, not from the letter date itself.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Tiffany Roseman's appeal from the superior court's dismissal of her petition for review because the court lacked jurisdiction. The case began in magistrate court, Roseman sought de novo review in superior court, and after the superior court dismissed her petition she appealed directly to this Court of Appeals. The Court held that appeals from superior-court de novo reviews of magistrate-court rulings require using the discretionary appeal procedures under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(1), which Roseman did not follow, so the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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 Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Joseph Michael Hirsch's appeal for failure to comply with the Court's docketing and briefing rules. The appellant did not file the required enumeration of errors and brief within the time ordered by the Court, despite a specific March 17, 2026 order giving a March 27, 2026 deadline. Because the filings were not received by the court, the appeal was deemed abandoned and dismissed under the Court of Appeals rules cited in the order.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas' dismissal of Haneef Muhammad’s complaint against PNC Financial Services. Muhammad sued PNC for claims arising from a 2023 bank-branch incident. The trial court granted PNC’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion, concluding res judicata barred the claims because Muhammad previously sued PNC in federal court and that court dismissed several claims for failure to state a claim. The appellate court found the federal dismissal on those claims to be an adjudication on the merits under Ohio precedent, so the state action was precluded and the trial court’s dismissal was proper.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Harrison County Court's judgment granting Cedar One Properties possession of rental premises after finding tenant Isis Rudolph breached her lease by failing to pay rent. Rudolph argued various due-process, bankruptcy-stay, and disability-accommodation defects, and contended the bankruptcy court's order lifting the automatic stay was void. The appellate court found many issues involved the federal bankruptcy proceeding (beyond its jurisdiction), noted Rudolph's briefing and record deficiencies (no trial transcript, App.R. violations), and concluded the eviction was authorized because the bankruptcy court had granted relief from the stay limited to pursuing eviction.

The Court of Appeals held that Washington public policy bars an insured from assigning legal malpractice claims against defense counsel to its liability insurer when a conflict of interest exists between insurer and insured. The dispute arose after Great American (primary insurer) paid a $5 million settlement for its insured C3 and obtained an assignment of C3’s malpractice claims against defense counsel. Because the insurer had defended under a reservation of rights and thus had potential conflict with the insured, the court reversed the superior court’s denial of judgment on the pleadings and ordered dismissal of the assigned claims.

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 Court of Appeals dismissed April Campbell’s application for discretionary review of a magistrate court dispossessory judgment because the court lacks jurisdiction. Columbia Park Citi obtained a magistrate judgment on February 25, 2026 awarding possession and $11,773.69 in past-due rent. Campbell filed for discretionary review on March 10, 2026, which was 13 days after the judgment. The court held that appeals in dispossessory actions must be filed within seven days, so Campbell’s filing was untimely and the Court declined to transfer the matter to the state or superior court.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Tony L. Ware’s direct appeal of a January 23, 2026 trial-court order that corrected a clerical error under OCGA § 9-11-60(g). The court found it lacked jurisdiction because the corrected order left issues pending in the trial court and was therefore not a final judgment subject to direct appeal. The court also rejected Ware’s arguments that the order dissolved an injunction or could be treated as a collateral attack under the collateral-order doctrine, explaining those paths required interlocutory application or were inapplicable here.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in A26A1231 because the appellant failed to comply with the Court's docketing notice and Court of Appeals Rule 23(a) by not filing an enumeration of errors and brief within the required time. The court had given a specific deadline of March 27, 2026, after an earlier order on March 17, 2026, but the appellant did not file the required documents. For these procedural violations, the Court concluded the appeal was abandoned and ordered it dismissed.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted the City of Atlanta's application for an interlocutory appeal in the case styled City of Atlanta v. Ronald Frank Petty, Jr. The court ordered that the appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the order and directed the Clerk of Superior Court to include this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals. The order is procedural: it authorizes an immediate appeal before final judgment and sets a short deadline for filing the notice and for inclusion of the order in the appellate record.

The Court of Appeals dismissed a direct discretionary appeal from a magistrate-court dispossessory judgment because it lacks jurisdiction. After the magistrate court granted Star Borrower SFR6 LP a writ of possession on March 11, 2026, defendants filed this application for discretionary appeal to the Court of Appeals. The court explained that appeals from magistrate courts are ordinarily taken by a new (de novo) appeal to the state or superior court under OCGA § 15-10-41(b)(1), and therefore the Court of Appeals may review such matters only after that intermediate review. The filing was transferred to the magistrate court for transmission to the state or superior court.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted the appellant Star Venture Auto, LLC’s motion to withdraw its appeal in the case against Jacquelyn Taylor. By granting the motion, the appellate court released jurisdiction back to the trial court effective upon receipt of the order. The decision is procedural: the court did not address the merits of the underlying dispute but approved dismissal of the appeal and returned the matter to the trial court for further proceedings or finalization there.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants-appellees and denial of plaintiffs-appellants’ summary judgment in a foreclosure action. Plaintiffs had executed and recorded a quitclaim deed in 2020 conveying the property to defendants and later sued in 2024 claiming an oral land-sale contract and unpaid installments. The court held plaintiffs lacked standing to foreclose because they held no recorded mortgage or lien, and the deed’s recited consideration barred use of prior oral agreements under the parol evidence and merger-by-deed rules. The judgment dismissing the case was affirmed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Lake County Court of Common Pleas’ grant of summary judgment for defendant-attorney David Patterson in Bruce Arnoff’s legal malpractice suit. Arnoff alleged Patterson’s representation in his federal habeas proceedings breached professional duties and caused dismissal of his habeas petition. The appellate court held there were no genuine issues of material fact: Patterson owed a duty but Arnoff failed to produce expert proof of breach or causation, and the federal petition’s untimeliness preceded Patterson’s retention. The court also rejected claims of improper joinder, discovery abuse, denial of jury trial, and judicial bias.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Butler County trial court's adoption of a magistrate's decision awarding Klein Engineering $233,554.95 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages. Appellants (Thiemann) argued they were denied a fair trial because the magistrate issued its decision 15 months after a bench trial and the first day's proceedings were not recorded. The appellate court held Ohio civil and appellate rules provide remedies (recall witnesses, stipulations, affidavits, or an App.R. 9(C) statement) to reconstruct an unrecorded record, and Thiemann failed to use those procedures in the trial court, so remand or reversal was not warranted.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held that Mid-Ohio Coal Company no longer owns the mineral rights beneath a 35-acre tract owned by Doris and Robert Williams. The court found that a 1954 quiet-title default judgment that awarded full fee title (including minerals) to the Williamses’ predecessors is binding on Mid-Ohio because Mid-Ohio succeeded to the same mineral interest as the party named in the 1954 suit. An 1891 indexing error in the county recorder’s office prevented discovery of the chain of title, so a diligent 1954 search would have shown Wheeling & Lake Erie Coal Company as record owner and thus the default judgment binds Mid-Ohio by privity.

The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the Defiance County Common Pleas Court’s denial of the Latin American Club of Defiance, Ohio’s motion for relief from an August 16, 2022 default judgment under Ohio Civil Rule 60(B). The LAC argued the judgment should be vacated because the plaintiff secured the default through misconduct and inadequate service after the club had been dormant and its corporate charter cancelled. The appeals court held the trial court reasonably found service by publication appropriate, that the LAC failed to show extraordinary fraud on the court or timely fraud against a party, and therefore did not meet the requirements for relief under the governing Rule 60(B) standards.

The Ohio Court of Appeals vacated a trial-court default judgment and receivership appointment entered against Janiene Johnson in a public-nuisance action brought by Community Gain. The court found that the affidavit supporting Community Gain’s request for service by publication did not identify the efforts taken to locate Johnson or show her address could not be ascertained with reasonable diligence, as required by Civ.R. 4.4 and R.C. 2703.14. Because service by publication was therefore improper, the trial court lacked jurisdiction and the default judgment is void; the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

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.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted discretionary review of Akeno Reid’s challenge to trial-court orders denying his motions to vacate child support and contempt orders. After reviewing the full record and a related earlier appeal (A25A0917), the Court concluded that granting review was improvident and dismissed Reid’s appeal. The court did not address the merits of Reid’s claims and instead ended the appeal because discretionary review was inappropriate under the circumstances.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the Mulbahs' application for discretionary review in a dispossessory (eviction) case because it was untimely. After the magistrate ruled for defendant KL Capital, LLC, the Mulbahs sought review in superior court; that court dismissed their petition on 2026-02-12 and denied reconsideration on 2026-03-04. The Mulbahs filed for discretionary review on 2026-03-09, but Georgia law requires such appeals in dispossessory actions to be filed within seven days of the judgment, and a reconsideration motion does not extend that deadline. Because timeliness is jurisdictional, the court dismissed the application.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant John A. Marre in a foreclosure/lien dispute brought by plaintiff John D. Allen. Allen claimed Marre agreed to pay him $365,000 and filed a UCC financing statement and lien when payment was not made. Marre submitted an affidavit and exhibits showing there was no enforceable contract or security interest, and Allen did not respond to the motion for summary judgment. The appellate court concluded no genuine issue of material fact existed and Marre was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of MAZCleveland and third-party defendant Steven Morris’s renewed motion for sanctions against defendant Sherry Hall under Ohio Rev. Code 2323.51. The appellants sought sanctions claiming Hall’s claims were frivolous and filed to harass, but the trial court determined the renewed motion merely restated previously-decided claims resolved by an agreed judgment. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion: winning on the merits does not by itself prove frivolousness, the statutory standard requires egregious conduct, and the trial court had sufficient familiarity with the prior proceedings to deny a hearing.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s default judgment against defendant-appellant Armand DiNardo in a dispute over lead-hazard remediation costs following Lofty Holding’s purchase of real property. Lofty served DiNardo by certified mail (returned unclaimed) and then by ordinary mail to a Kenwood Drive address; the clerk’s docket reflected ordinary-mail service and no return showing failure. The trial court held hearings and afforded DiNardo multiple chances to respond; DiNardo failed to appear or rebut service with convincing evidence. The appeals court held service was proper and the default judgment was valid.