Court Filings

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s dismissal of Tim Eyman’s recall petition against Secretary of State Steve Hobbs. Eyman argued Hobbs failed to transmit a proposed referendum measure as required by statute, amounting to misfeasance and a violation of his oath. The Court held the petition was legally insufficient because the challenged statute was enacted with a valid emergency clause, making the law exempt from referendum and negating any mandatory duty the secretary had to process that referendum. The Court affirmed without reaching factual sufficiency.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals denied Lorenza Barnette’s petition for a writ of mandamus and granted the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s motion for summary judgment. Barnette sought an order directing the Department to change its records to reflect that his June 28, 2021 entry imposed no prison sentence. The court concluded the 2011 judgment imposing two life-without-parole terms (plus additional consecutive terms) remains the operative sentence. The 2019 entry imposing post-release control was vacated on appeal and the 2021 entry only notified him of post-release control for kidnapping, not resentencing.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice concurred with the majority in holding that the Borough’s stormwater charge functions as a tax rather than a fee because the proceeds fund broad, community-wide projects (tree planting, street sweeping, regrading alleys, rain gardens, curb extensions) that benefit the public generally rather than providing specific, measurable services to West Chester University. The concurrence explains that when charges fund generalized environmental and beautification projects remote from the university, the nexus to runoff from university property is too thin to qualify as a fee. The justice reserved judgment on different fact patterns where proceeds are spent solely on direct stormwater remediation or where charges are closely tied to individual property runoff.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District, issued an order on April 30, 2026, quashing Pedro Luis Gavilan-Cruz’s Notice of Appeal. The court relied on Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 910(a)(5), indicating that the appeal did not comply with the requirement that only the questions in the jurisdictional statement (or those fairly comprised therein) will ordinarily be considered. As a result, the court declined to consider the appeal and dismissed the appeal process by quashing the notice.

The Appellate Division, Third Department denied Mary Elizabeth Rain's motion for reinstatement to the New York bar following a two-year suspension imposed in 2018 for multiple professional misconduct violations committed while she served as a district attorney. The court applied the three-part reinstatement test requiring compliance with suspension terms, proof of character and fitness by clear and convincing evidence, and demonstration that reinstatement would serve the public interest. The court found Rain failed to show she had meaningfully addressed the misconduct that led to suspension and provided no concrete plans or assurances that reinstatement would not harm the public, so her motion was denied.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted Michael R. Pichowicz's application to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. The court reviewed Pichowicz's sworn affidavit and the Attorney Grievance Committee's response, found him eligible under the court's rules, accepted his nondisciplinary resignation, struck his name from the roll of attorneys, and ordered that he cease practicing law in New York and surrender any Attorney Secure Pass within 30 days. The decision is administrative, not punitive, and effective immediately.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted Daniel Isaac Papermaster's application to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons and accepted his resignation. The court reviewed Papermaster's sworn affidavit and the Attorney Grievance Committee's non-opposition, determined he was eligible under the court rules, struck his name from the roll of attorneys, and ordered that he cease practicing law in New York and surrender any Attorney Secure Pass within 30 days. The resignation is effective immediately and remains until further court order.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted Jeremy David Mishkin's request to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. The court reviewed Mishkin's sworn affidavit and the Attorney Grievance Committee's letter, found him eligible under the rules governing attorney disciplinary matters, and accepted his resignation. The court struck his name from the roll of attorneys, prohibited him from practicing or holding himself out as an attorney in New York, and ordered him to surrender any Attorney Secure Pass within 30 days. The resignation is effective immediately.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted Robin Plummer Keller's application to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons under the court's attorney discipline rules. The court reviewed Keller's sworn affidavit and the Attorney Grievance Committee's response, found Keller eligible to resign for nondisciplinary reasons, accepted the resignation, struck his name from the roll of attorneys, enjoined him from practicing or holding himself out as an attorney in New York, and ordered surrender of any Attorney Secure Pass within 30 days.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted attorney John R. Gowell Jr.'s request to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. The court reviewed Gowell's sworn affidavit and the Attorney Grievance Committee's response, found him eligible under the applicable rule, and accepted his resignation. As a result, his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys, he is prohibited from practicing or holding himself out as an attorney in New York, and he must surrender any Attorney Secure Pass within 30 days. The AGC did not oppose the application.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted attorney Jonathan R. Flora's application to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. The Court reviewed Flora's sworn affidavit and the Attorney Grievance Committee's statement that it did not oppose the application, found him eligible under the court's disciplinary rules, accepted the resignation, struck his name from the roll, and imposed the usual prohibitions against practicing or holding out as an attorney in New York. Flora must surrender any Attorney Secure Pass within 30 days.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted attorney Jacob Timothy English’s application to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. The court reviewed English’s sworn affidavit and the Attorney Grievance Committee’s response, found him eligible under the court’s rules, accepted his nondisciplinary resignation, struck his name from the roll, and ordered that he cease practicing or holding himself out as an attorney in New York and surrender any Attorney Secure Pass within 30 days.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted attorney Alan E. Davis's application to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. The court reviewed Davis's sworn affidavit and the Attorney Grievance Committee's response, found him eligible under the court rules, accepted his resignation, struck his name from the roll of attorneys, and directed that he cease practicing law in New York and surrender any Attorney Secure Pass within 30 days. The decision is administrative, not a disciplinary sanction.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted Jennifer T. Conti-Bediner's application to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. The court reviewed her sworn affidavit and the Attorney Grievance Committee's statement that it did not oppose the resignation, determined she was eligible under the court rules, accepted her resignation, and struck her name from the roll of attorneys effective immediately. The court also enjoined her from practicing or holding herself out as an attorney in New York and ordered surrender of any Attorney Secure Pass within 30 days.

The Texas Tenth Court of Appeals denied Bryan Stallworth's original petition for a writ of mandamus. The court issued a brief memorandum opinion stating only that the petition is denied and citing the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. No published reasoning or extended analysis accompanies the denial. The decision was delivered and filed on April 30, 2026, by Chief Justice Matt Johnson for a three-judge panel.

The Appellate Division suspended attorney Adam Kalish for three years after confirming a Special Referee's findings that he misappropriated client funds held in his escrow (trust) account and engaged in conduct reflecting adversely on his fitness as a lawyer. The Grievance Committee brought a formal disciplinary proceeding based on a large shortfall in Kalish's escrow account. The court sustained two of three charges, rejecting one, and concluded Kalish abdicated his fiduciary responsibilities by allowing investor funds to pass through his trust account without adequate safeguards, failing to investigate or promptly report problems, and relying on an outside referrer despite his knowledge of ethical obligations.

The Second District Court of Appeal dismissed J. Stanford Lifsey’s petition for writ of certiorari as moot. The court concluded that changed circumstances meant it could not provide any effective relief, citing precedent that moot appeals must be dismissed. The petition had sought review of a circuit court decision, but because subsequent events eliminated the possibility of judicial relief, the appeal was terminated without reaching the merits.

The Court of Appeals denied Ernest Dale Benson Jr.'s personal restraint petition challenging the Department of Corrections’ recalculation of his earned release time (ERT). Benson was resentenced in 2024 from life without parole to two concurrent 40-year terms. DOC initially credited him with 33.33% ERT but later concluded aggravated first degree murder qualifies as a serious violent offense, limiting ERT to 15% under RCW 9.94A.729(3)(b). The court held aggravated first degree murder is a type of first degree murder within the statutory scheme, so Benson was eligible only for 15% ERT and failed to show unlawful restraint.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that cast vote records (CVRs) are not the "contents of ballot boxes and voting machines" under Section 308 (25 P.S. § 2648) of the Election Code, and therefore are not exempt from public disclosure. The court rejected the Commonwealth Court’s view that CVRs are the digital equivalent of machine contents and found the statute’s plain language dispositive. The Court noted that if policy concerns exist about disclosure, the proper remedy is legislative change rather than judicial construction of a statute enacted in 1937.

The First Department granted the Attorney Grievance Committee's motion for reciprocal discipline and publicly censured attorney Barbara Jayne Resnick. Connecticut previously publicly reprimanded Resnick after she admitted holding herself out as an attorney while administratively suspended there for failing to pay client security fees. The New York court found no defects in the Connecticut proceeding, determined the misconduct would also violate New York Rule 5.5(a), and concluded that a public censure in New York is appropriate and consistent with the sanction imposed in Connecticut and First Department precedent.

The Appellate Division, First Department granted the Attorney Grievance Committee's motion for an immediate interim suspension of attorney William John Lloyd King. The court found uncontroverted documentary evidence — bank records and King's written admission — that he converted or misappropriated $17,420 in a client's funds to satisfy a gambling addiction. The court rejected King's request for diversion or a disability suspension, concluding his misconduct posed an immediate threat to the public and that addiction-based mitigation, restitution, or brief recovery efforts do not prevent an interim suspension pending any formal charges.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a pro se appeal by David Charles Sussman. The appeal challenged actions involving the Assistant State Attorney, a circuit judge, and the Assistant Attorney General. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the circuit court without published opinion or extended reasoning. The opinion is final subject to timely authorized post-judgment motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

The court dismissed Hasan Howard’s petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a Lake County judge’s failure to quash a warrant or promptly hold a community-control violation hearing while Howard remains in federal custody. The judge granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), concluding Howard cannot show a clear legal right to relief because Ohio law tolls community control while an offender is confined, and the interstate detainer statute does not require a prompt hearing for probation or community-control violations. The court also relied on due-process precedent holding no right to an immediate hearing before custody on the detainer has occurred.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Charles J. Lawn, Jr. from a decision of the Circuit Court for Jackson County involving Graceville Correctional Facility. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 27, 2026, and affirmed the lower court's judgment. No substantive opinion or reasoning beyond the one-word disposition was provided in the published entry; the decision was unanimous and counsel for the appellee and the pro se appellant are noted.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Torrey D. Walker challenging actions by a Leon County circuit judge. The court issued a short per curiam decision dated April 27, 2026, and affirmed the lower court's ruling. No extended opinion or reasoning appears in the record beyond the single-word disposition and concurrence by three judges. The decision notes the appellate process remains open for any timely, authorized post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal denied Kevin Gregory Mason's petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a lower-court matter involving Edith Knapp Mason. The court, acting in its original jurisdiction, issued a per curiam order on April 27, 2026, simply stating 'DENIED' without published opinion or extended reasoning. All three judges concurred. The order notes the decision is not final until any timely authorized rehearing motion is resolved.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department accepted Attorney Paul David Stern’s application to resign for non-disciplinary reasons and ordered his name removed from the roll of attorneys. The court treated the submission as a resignation petition, found no disciplinary proceeding necessary, and approved the voluntary withdrawal from the bar. The decision is procedural—it removes Stern’s authorization to practice law in New York without imposing any disciplinary sanction or further proceedings.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department accepted the application of attorney Donald T. Schmitt to resign from the practice of law for non-disciplinary reasons and ordered his name removed from the roll of attorneys. The court treated the filing as an application to resign, found no disciplinary proceeding necessary, and granted the requested relief, resulting in Schmitt's voluntary cessation of his status as a licensed attorney in New York.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department accepted attorney Margaret M. Quinn's application to resign for non-disciplinary reasons and ordered her name removed from the roll of attorneys. The court treated the filing as a voluntary, non-punitive resignation rather than the result of formal disciplinary proceedings and therefore approved removal without imposing sanctions. The decision is administrative: it grants the requested relief and updates the official roster of admitted attorneys accordingly.

The Appellate Division affirmed Surrogate's Court's order dismissing petitioner Barrett Hess's petition to probate the will of Janet Hess. The court reviewed the surrogate's dismissal of the probate petition following respondents' motion to dismiss and agreed with the surrogate's reasoning. The appellate court concluded there was no reversible error in the surrogate's disposition and therefore upheld dismissal, awarding costs to respondents.