Court Filings

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department accepted Attorney Franklin William Heller'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 voluntary resignation not prompted by disciplinary charges and granted the request, ending his authority to practice law in New York. There is no indication of misconduct findings or ongoing disciplinary proceedings in this decision; the court's action was procedural and limited to removing Heller's name from the attorney list.

The Appellate Division confirmed a referee's findings that attorney Diana G. Cunningham neglected two client matters, failed to communicate with clients and a court referee, and did not timely comply with attorney registration rules. The court found multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and registration statutes. Because Cunningham has a substantial disciplinary history with similar prior misconduct, the Court suspended her for three years and until further order, but it stayed the suspension on conditions including compliance with registration rules, participation in mental health monitoring and an attorney mentoring program, quarterly reporting, and limits on active cases.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, issued a memorandum and order on April 24, 2026, terminating a previously imposed suspension and granting Gregory Jon Butler's application for reinstatement to the practice of law. The court reviewed the reinstatement application under Judiciary Law section 468-a and related rules governing attorney discipline and reinstatement. Concluding that Butler met the requirements for readmission, the court ended his suspension and restored his right to practice in New York.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department accepted an application by attorney Peter John Brevorka 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 submission as a voluntary resignation rather than a disciplinary sanction and granted the requested relief, thereby terminating his status as an active attorney in New York State.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department accepted an attorney’s application to resign for non-disciplinary reasons and ordered his name removed from the roll of attorneys. The court processed a petition by Cody Blake Bartlett seeking resignation that was not tied to any disciplinary proceeding. After reviewing the application, the court granted the request and removed Bartlett from the official list of licensed attorneys in New York State. No disciplinary finding was made against him in this decision.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department dismissed as moot a CPLR article 78 proceeding brought by petitioner Oscar Asencio challenging a Department of Corrections determination finding he violated incarcerated individual rules after a tier III hearing. The court concluded the challenge no longer presented a live controversy and cited controlling precedent on mootness. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition without costs and did not reach the merits of the disciplinary determination.

The Texas Tenth Court of Appeals denied Gregory G. Idom’s original petition for a writ of mandamus and his emergency motion for a stay. The filing, received April 23, 2026, sought extraordinary relief from the appellate court, but the court declined to grant the requested mandamus or stay. The brief opinion contains the court's disposition without published reasoning and was issued April 24, 2026.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Sheila Hall from a decision of the Office of Judges of Compensation Claims concerning a workplace injury dated December 12, 2023. The panel issued a unanimous per curiam opinion on April 24, 2026, and affirmed the lower tribunal's ruling. The opinion is brief, provides no extended explanation in the published text, and notes that the judgment is subject to any timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed Mark Alan Lane’s appeal from a Pasco County Court decision and, without published opinion, affirmed the lower court’s ruling. The panel issued a short per curiam disposition—Affirmed—indicating they found no reversible error in the county court’s handling of Lane’s matter. The decision is final as issued by the appellate panel; no further reasoning or discussion was provided in the opinion beyond the affirmation and concurrence by the three judges.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal denied Elizabeth Collins's emergency second petition seeking a writ of prohibition, other extraordinary relief, and an immediate constitutional stay against the trial judge. The court issued a short per curiam order denying the petition and cited Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.330(i) and Delgado v. Miller as supporting authority. No respondent appeared, and three judges concurred. The denial is subject to any timely authorized motion under the appellate rules.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed Container Corporation and Hartford Fire Insurance Company's petition for a writ of certiorari seeking relief in an original proceeding brought against James Way. The court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 24, 2026, stating only “DISMISSED” and noting the opinion is not final until any timely motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 are resolved. No substantive reasoning or legal analysis appears in the published entry beyond the dismissal and concurrence by the three judges.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed Brian Bacchus’s appeal from a judges of compensation claims decision concerning an April 20, 2021 accident. The court issued a brief per curiam order simply stating 'DISMISSED' without published opinion or extended reasoning. The dismissal ends this appeal at the appellate level unless the appellant timely files an authorized motion under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure to challenge that procedural disposition.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in an appeal brought by Vincent H. Osorio against Elizabeth Osorio. The appellate court reviewed the circuit court's ruling in Pasco County and, after considering the parties' briefs and record, concluded there was no reversible error and upheld the lower court's judgment. The opinion was issued per curiam without a published written opinion, and the three-judge panel concurred. No further reasoning or detailed findings were included in the short docketed opinion.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal treated Paris Demetrius Evans’s petition for writ of certiorari as an appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c) from the trial court’s January 6, 2026 order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus. The appellate court reviewed the order and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. The per curiam opinion states only the procedural conversion to an appeal and the affirmance, without extended reasoning, and the decision was issued April 24, 2026.

The Texas Tenth Court of Appeals considered an original petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Frances Spanos Shelton on June 26, 2025. The court reviewed the request and denied the petition. The short opinion states the procedural posture (an original mandamus proceeding), the parties, and the disposition without extended explanation or citations to legal standards or facts.

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas denied Randall Bolivar’s pro se petition for a writ of mandamus in a Cameron County district court case. Bolivar asked the appellate court to order the trial court to perform ministerial duties of setting, hearing, and ruling on pending matters. The appellate court concluded Bolivar failed to show both a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and the lack of an adequate appellate remedy, and he also did not supply a sufficient record as required by the mandamus rules. For these reasons, the petition was denied.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals dismissed a mandamus complaint filed by James and Cynthia Lundeen and Sir Isaac Newton Enterprises seeking to force Cuyahoga Common Pleas Judge Sherrie Miday to vacate her order dismissing the Lundeens’ counterclaim for false-light invasion of privacy. The court held Judge Miday had subject-matter jurisdiction after the case was transferred to common pleas court and that any error in her ruling would make the judgment voidable, not void, meaning mandamus was not an appropriate remedy because an appeal is an adequate remedy at law. The court also declared the Lundeens vexatious litigants and barred pro se filings without leave.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals denied Monica G. Justice’s request for a writ of mandamus that would have ordered the Franklin County clerk to serve her a July 22, 2025 amended sentencing entry. The court adopted the magistrate’s decision and granted the State’s motion to dismiss because Justice, an incarcerated pro se relator, failed to comply with statutory procedural requirements for inmate litigants. Specifically, she did not file the required affidavit listing prior civil actions, did not provide the certified inmate-account statements/affidavit of indigency needed to waive fees, and did not caption the petition in the name of the State on her relation.

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals dismissed Mao Ju’s mandamus action seeking to force a Xenia Municipal Court magistrate to further process her citizen criminal affidavit charging her former spouse with interference with custody. The court held that the magistrate properly reviewed the affidavit and determined it did not establish probable cause for a misdemeanor, and that Ohio statutes do not require the magistrate to docket the affidavit, assign a case number, refer misdemeanor allegations to a prosecutor, or hold a formal probable-cause hearing. Because Ju could not show a clear legal right or a mandatory duty owed by the magistrate, the writ was denied.

The Ohio Supreme Court denied mandamus relief to inmate-relator Devin D. Howard against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s chief inspector’s office. Howard had appealed an institutional grievance and included a request for two correction-officer work schedules and copies of two ODRC policies. The inspector’s office maintained it did not view the grievance appeal as a public-records request and therefore did not respond as a records custodian. The Court concluded Howard did not carry his burden to show he clearly submitted a public-records request in that context, and it denied the writ and his requests for statutory damages and costs.

The Appellate Division, Third Department, granted Baidu Xu's motion to be reinstated to the practice of law after a prior suspension in September 2024. The court reviewed Xu's affidavit and the Committee's response and found by clear and convincing evidence that Xu complied with the suspension order and court rules, demonstrated the requisite character and fitness, and that reinstatement served the public interest. The court ordered immediate reinstatement under the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters governing reinstatement after suspension.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted Attorney Amanda Wurah's motion to be reinstated to the practice of law after a suspension imposed in September 2024. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that Wurah had complied with the suspension order and court rules, demonstrated the requisite character and fitness, and that reinstatement served the public interest. Based on those findings and the applicable reinstatement rule, the court ordered that Wurah is reinstated effective immediately.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted Natalie Sirouhi Shahinian's motion to be reinstated to the practice of law after a September 2024 suspension. The court reviewed her affidavit and the Committee's response, found by clear and convincing evidence that she complied with the suspension order and applicable rules, demonstrated the requisite character and fitness, and that reinstatement served the public interest. As a result, the court ordered her reinstatement effective immediately.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision disqualifying Peirce Screen from receiving unemployment benefits because his employment was terminated for misconduct. The appeal was brought by Screen (pro se) against his former employer A & K Automotive and the Commissioner of Labor. The court issued a short order affirming the Board's ruling without opinion or costs, leaving the Board's finding of misconduct and resulting disqualification in place.

The Texas Second Court of Appeals considered Charles Wayne Wilson’s original petition for a writ of mandamus and his request for temporary relief arising from the 235th District Court of Cooke County (trial court no. CV25-00201). In a per curiam memorandum opinion, the appellate court denied both the petition and the motion for temporary relief without an extended opinion. The court delivered its decision on April 23, 2026, leaving the trial court’s matters undisturbed and denying extraordinary relief from the appellate court.

The court dismissed Brenton Autwavious Smith’s appeal from his murder conviction because the trial court certified this was a plea-bargain case in which the defendant has no right of appeal. The appellate court gave Smith a month to show grounds to continue the appeal after notifying him of the certification, but he did not respond. Because the trial-court certification showing no right to appeal was part of the record and Smith had waived appeal rights in his plea paperwork, the appellate court dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits.

The Chief Justice issued a concurring opinion in a mandamus original proceeding emphasizing that the petition contains citations and quotations that appear to be fabricated by artificial intelligence. The opinion warns that submitting briefs with nonexistent or misrepresented authorities—whether produced by AI or not—constitutes a serious breach of candor under Texas appellate rules and applicable case law, and may prompt corrective actions such as striking the brief or reporting counsel to the State Bar. The concurrence urges attorneys to verify AI-generated research and quotations before filing.

The Texas First Court of Appeals denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Paula M. Miller challenging a Fort Bend County Democratic Party Chairwoman’s determination that Miller was ineligible for the general election. The court explained that the relator bears the burden to file a complete appellate record demonstrating entitlement to mandamus relief under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a). Because Miller did not file a complete record, the court denied mandamus relief and dismissed any pending motions as moot.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals denied Jewlian Smith's petition for a writ of mandamus and dismissed as moot his emergency request for a temporary stay of trial-court proceedings. The appellate court, in a short memorandum opinion, concluded that relief by writ was not warranted and that the requested temporary stay was moot because circumstances no longer required emergency intervention. The opinion was issued as an original mandamus proceeding arising from Travis County and was filed April 23, 2026.

The Texas Court of Appeals (Third District) denied an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Alisa Ann Golz and dismissed her emergency motion for temporary relief as moot. The court issued a short memorandum opinion without extended discussion, simply directing that the petition be denied and the temporary relief motion dismissed under the appellate rules governing emergency pleadings and relief. No further reasoning or factual findings are stated in the published entry.