Court Filings

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal denied Spiros C. Paizes's petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a Hillsborough County circuit court decision. The petition was considered on its merits and the appellate court, in a brief per curiam order, concluded relief was not warranted and denied the petition. All three judges concurred. No additional reasoning or detailed factual background was provided in the published entry.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal dismissed Molly Dorsey’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court found the trial court’s December 6, 2024 orders (an Amended Order of Summary Administration and an Amended Order Determining Homestead Status) were final, but Dorsey filed her notice of appeal on February 12, 2025—outside the 30-day deadline. Because no timely appeal of any final order was filed, the appellate court also lacked jurisdiction over earlier nonfinal orders and motions. The court rejected attempts to toll the appeal period and concluded the appeal must be dismissed.

The Texas Tenth Court of Appeals denied Shawn Eric McGee’s petition for a writ of mandamus filed April 10, 2026. The court issued a short memorandum opinion stating the petition is denied and that motions included with the petition are dismissed as moot. The opinion notes that the relator also attempted to file a notice of appeal in the same document and reminds that a separate notice of appeal must be filed when a proceeding becomes final in the trial court. The decision was delivered and filed April 16, 2026.

The Second Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed a juvenile court's order committing D.A. to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department after a modification hearing. D.A. had admitted to delinquent conduct, was placed on probation, then repeatedly absconded and violated probation terms; the juvenile court found she violated lawful orders and made the required findings to commit her. On appeal she argued the trial court refused to consider the full range of dispositions by denying a psychological evaluation and prejudging the case. The appellate court found no preserved due-process complaint about the evaluation and no evidence the court predetermined disposition, so it affirmed.

The Texas Court of Appeals denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by WC 4th and Rio Grande LP in an original proceeding from Travis County. The court issued a brief memorandum opinion concluding the petition did not warrant mandamus relief and cited the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. No further explanation of the merits or factual background was provided in the published entry, and the court simply denied the requested extraordinary writ.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals denied Geoji, Inc.'s petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a trial-court action. The appellate court issued a short memorandum opinion simply stating denial and citing the appellate rule allowing such disposition. No extended reasoning, factual background, or separate opinion was included in the published entry. The decision concludes the original proceeding from Travis County without granting the extraordinary relief requested by the petitioner.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals denied David Paul Shipp's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a Williamson County court action. The opinion is a brief memorandum disposition that grants no relief and cites the appellate rule for denial. No extended reasoning or factual discussion is provided in the published entry. The petition remains unresolved in the trial court as a result of this denial, and the appellate court provided no substantive ruling on the merits.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion to immediately suspend Adebukola Ogunsanya from practicing law in New York while it investigates multiple misconduct complaints. The court found she failed to respond to some complaints, did not appear for an examination under oath, and did not produce requested records. Because refusal to comply with investigative demands threatens the public interest and the disciplinary process, the court concluded interim suspension was warranted until further order, with warnings about possible disbarment if she continues not to cooperate.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Supreme Court's dismissal of Juan Carlos Ocasio's CPLR article 78 petition challenging his honorable discharge from the New York Guard and related FOIL claims. The court held that the challenge to discharge implicated military order and discipline and was therefore nonjusticiable under the intra-military immunity doctrine. The court also found the FOIL claims moot because DMNA had responded to the requests and Ocasio failed to exhaust administrative appeals regarding any alleged inadequacy. The court denied sanctions against the respondent for lack of support in the record.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted Elizabeth Marie Mills' application to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. The court reviewed Mills' sworn affidavit and the Attorney Grievance Committee's statement of non-opposition, concluded she was eligible to resign under the disciplinary rules, accepted her resignation, struck her name from the roll of attorneys, and ordered her immediately prohibited from practicing or holding out as an attorney in New York. Mills must also surrender any Attorney Secure Pass within 30 days.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted attorney Hideaki Kubo's application to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. The court reviewed Kubo's sworn affidavit and the Attorney Grievance Committee's response, found Kubo eligible to resign under the court's disciplinary rules, accepted the resignation, struck Kubo's name from the roll of attorneys, and ordered Kubo to cease practicing law in New York and to surrender any Attorney Secure Pass within 30 days. The resignation was accepted with immediate effect and without a disciplinary finding.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted attorney Neal Mitchel Frank's request to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons and accepted his resignation. The court reviewed Frank's sworn affidavit and the Attorney Grievance Committee's statement that it did not oppose the application, found him eligible under the applicable disciplinary rules, and ordered his name stricken from the roll of attorneys effective immediately. The court also permanently enjoined him from practicing law in New York and required surrender of any Attorney Secure Pass within 30 days.

The Appellate Division, Third Department, granted Lawrence Martin Brody's application to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons and accepted his resignation. The court reviewed Brody's sworn affidavit and the Attorney Grievance Committee's lack of opposition, found him eligible under the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters, and struck his name from the roll of attorneys effective immediately. The court ordered that Brody cease practicing law in New York, forbade him from holding himself out as an attorney, and required surrender of any Attorney Secure Pass within 30 days.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted a petition by suspended attorney Zhe Sang to be reinstated to the practice of law. The court reviewed Sang's affidavit and the Attorney Grievance Committee's response and found by clear and convincing evidence that Sang complied with the suspension order and applicable rules, possesses the required character and fitness, and that reinstatement serves the public interest. The court ordered Sang reinstated effective immediately.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted Wengang He's motion to be reinstated to the practice of law after a suspension imposed in May 2019. Reviewing filings and correspondence, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that He satisfied the reinstatement requirements in the court rules, complied with the suspension order, demonstrated the character and fitness needed to practice, and that reinstatement served the public interest. The court ordered that He be reinstated effective immediately.

The Appellate Division, Third Department, granted Anson Carlton Asaka's motion for reinstatement to the practice of law after his May 2019 suspension. The court reviewed affidavits and correspondence, found by clear and convincing evidence that Asaka satisfied the governing reinstatement rule, complied with the suspension order and court rules, possesses the necessary character and fitness, and that reinstatement served the public interest. The court ordered that Asaka be reinstated effective immediately.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by A.M., the mother of S.L., from a Hernando County circuit court order in a child-protective proceeding brought by the Department of Children and Families. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion on April 16, 2026, and affirmed the lower court's decision. No further reasoning or explanation is included in the opinion; the panel of three judges concurred.

The Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth considered Elizabeth Case’s original petition for a writ of mandamus and an emergency motion seeking relief from the 393rd District Court of Denton County (trial court no. 25-3863-393). The appellate court reviewed the request and denied both the petition and the emergency motion in a per curiam memorandum opinion delivered April 15, 2026. The court provided no extended written reasoning in the memorandum opinion beyond the denial.

The Fourth Court of Appeals denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Omar Elizondo, Ovidio Elizondo, and Dr. Anthony Cynthia Elizondo Aradillas. The petition and related motions (an emergency motion for temporary relief and a motion for expedited consideration) were filed March 24, 2026. After review, the court concluded the relators did not show entitlement to the extraordinary relief requested and therefore denied the mandamus petition; the emergency and expedited motions were denied as moot.

The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio denied James McCoy's petition for a writ of mandamus filed April 6, 2026, seeking to compel action in an underlying Bexar County district-court case. The court reviewed McCoy's petition and motions and concluded he did not meet the legal standard for mandamus relief under Texas appellate rules. As a result, the petition is denied and McCoy's ancillary motions (to proceed in forma pauperis and to accept a single copy of pleadings) were denied as moot.

The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by AGON4, LLC and Texas Premium Beverage Corp. The relators sought to compel action in an underlying probate-court case but failed to show entitlement to extraordinary relief under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because the court found the petition insufficient, it denied the writ and dismissed as moot the relators' separate motion for temporary relief (a stay of the underlying proceedings). No further reasoning beyond the procedural insufficiency is provided.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Thelma Peake's late request to file her appellate brief out of time and quashed her appeal for failure to file a timely brief in a case challenging the nomination petition of Shaun Griffith for Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District. The court's order, issued per curiam, concluded that leave to file nunc pro tunc was not warranted and that the procedural default (no timely brief) required dismissal of the appeal. No substantive merits were reached because the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed as moot the appeal by Sebastian C., who challenged a juvenile court’s denial of his request to transfer from a secure youth treatment facility to his adult sister’s home as a "less restrictive program" under Welfare & Institutions Code section 875. The appellate court concluded that clarification of the statutory meaning was warranted: a family home can qualify as a less restrictive program when supervision and services are provided or coordinated by a community-based nonresidential program. Because Sebastian was later placed in less restrictive settings and the challenged order no longer affects him, the court dismissed the appeal without deciding whether the trial court abused its discretion in this case.

The Texas Court of Appeals (Third District) denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Jessica Marklund Johansson. The court issued a short memorandum opinion stating only the denial and citing the appellate rule permitting such disposition. No substantive analysis or factual background appears in the opinion; the denial resolves the original mandamus proceeding brought from Travis County without granting the extraordinary relief sought.

The court denied Keimarkus Woodard’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking a new parole-revocation hearing, an acquittal of alleged parole violations, and removal from post-release control. The Tenth District adopted the magistrate’s findings that the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (OAPA) complied with due process and that the hearing officer’s findings that Woodard violated conditions of supervision were supported by substantial evidence (including agent testimony and a seized packet testing positive for fentanyl). The court concluded Woodard failed to show OAPA had a clear legal duty to find him not guilty or that OAPA abused its discretion.

The court dismissed Prince Charles Cotten Sr.’s procedendo petition as moot. Cotten sought an order requiring Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Carl A. Aveni to proceed to judgment in Cotten’s underlying civil case, alleging delay and failure to rule on a motion. The magistrate and appellate panel found the trial judge had already dismissed Cotten’s complaint without prejudice on August 11, 2025 (thereby resolving pending motions), so there was no remaining duty to compel. Because the act Cotten sought had been performed, the procedendo claim was moot and the motion to dismiss was sustained.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted Applicant Katrina Cooper's motion to withdraw her application for discretionary appeal in case A26D0439. The court ordered that the application is deemed withdrawn and issued a formal minute entry reflecting that decision on April 13, 2026. There is no opinion on the merits because the procedural request to withdraw was uncontested and dispositive of the application.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals dismissed Trumbull County Children Services Board’s petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition as moot. The Board had asked the court to force the juvenile judge to comply with the appellate mandate in In re A.W. (which returned legal custody of A.W. to the maternal aunt) and to bar the judge’s ex parte order granting the father temporary custody. After a pretrial conference the parties represented that the aunt now has legal and physical custody in accordance with the mandate and the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry clarifying the record, so the appellate court found the requested relief obtained and dismissed the petition.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Law Division's denial without prejudice of R.G.C.'s second application to expunge her criminal record under New Jersey's "clean slate" law. The court held that although more than ten years had passed since her conviction, petitioner failed to prove her large unpaid restitution obligation was not "willful noncompliance." Because she offered no competent, credibly documented evidence of inability to pay (despite claiming deportation, illness, and poverty), the court found her post-release nonpayment was a deliberate choice and therefore denied expungement.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied an application to correct the record under Pa.R.A.P. 1926 and affirmed the Commonwealth Court's March 31, 2026 order concerning the nomination petition of Karl Morris as the Democratic candidate for the Third Congressional District. The matter was an appeal by Karl Morris from the Commonwealth Court decision; the Supreme Court reviewed the procedural request to alter the record and declined it, leaving the lower court's decision intact.