Court Filings

The City of Edinburg filed a petition for writ of mandamus claiming the trial court abused its discretion by freezing discovery deadlines. The city later moved to withdraw the petition because the parties reached an agreement about the disputed discovery, rendering the mandamus request moot. The court treated the withdrawal as a motion to dismiss, found the matter moot under controlling authority, and dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals, in an original mandamus proceeding arising from Travis County, denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. The court issued a brief memorandum opinion concluding the petitioner was not entitled to the extraordinary relief sought and cited the appellate rule governing disposition. No further explanation or relief was provided in the opinion, and the denial resolves the petition without granting any mandamus relief.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals denied Sonny Delgado's petition for a writ of mandamus and dismissed his emergency motion for temporary relief as moot. The court issued a brief memorandum opinion stating only the disposition and citing the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. No substantive opinion or reasoning was provided in the document beyond the procedural rulings and the filing date.

The Court of Appeals of the Eighth District of Texas denied Ruben Dario Almela's petition for a writ of mandamus. Almela filed the petition on April 6, 2026 seeking extraordinary relief, but the court concluded he failed to demonstrate entitlement to that relief. The court therefore denied the petition and dismissed any pending motions as moot. The opinion is brief and affirms the denial without issuing further instructions or relief.

The Texas Second Court of Appeals considered Miceala Hurtado’s original mandamus petition seeking extraordinary relief from an order of the 325th District Court of Tarrant County. After review, the appellate court concluded mandamus relief was not warranted and denied the petition in a brief per curiam memorandum opinion. No extended reasoning or factual discussion appears in the opinion; the court simply states it considered the petition and determined relief should be denied.

The First District Court of Appeals reviewed two juvenile cases against T.B. after police stopped him and three companions for jaywalking and found a handgun on his person following a frisk. The court affirmed the juvenile court’s denial of suppression and the concealed-weapons adjudication, concluding the frisk was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion, the gun was properly authenticated, and was shown operable. But the court reversed the jaywalking adjudication because the juvenile court abused its discretion by implicitly denying T.B.’s timely pre-disposition motion to withdraw his plea without explanation. The matter was remanded for withdrawal of the jaywalking plea.

The Ohio Supreme Court adopted the Board of Professional Conduct’s findings that attorney Jack Herchel VanBibber committed multiple ethics violations while a prior disciplinary matter was pending. The court found that he neglected a client’s custody matter, knowingly made false statements to a tribunal, solicited a client’s significant other for sex via electronic messages, and failed to cooperate and made false statements during disciplinary investigations. Considering aggravating factors (prior discipline, multiple offenses, dishonesty, lack of cooperation, and harm to others) and limited mitigation, the court suspended him from practice for two years and taxed costs to him.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the juvenile court's November 7, 2025 order that declined to terminate court supervision of dependent adult N.L. at age 21 and ordered York County Children and Youth Services (CYS) to fund N.L.’s placement until social security benefits were obtained. The juvenile court found that although CYS had developed a transition plan, the plan lacked an enforceable funding source because N.L.’s guardian had not secured benefits. The Superior Court held that a dependency court may continue supervision past 21 when a transition plan is not complete, particularly when income to support placement is not in place.

The Texas Supreme Court denied a mandamus petition challenging a trial court order that disqualified defendants’ counsel because a legal assistant who formerly worked for the plaintiffs later worked on the same case for the defendants’ firm without having been instructed to avoid the matter. The Court reaffirmed a longstanding bright-line rule that side-switching nonlawyers must be admonished not to work on matters from their prior employment before they commence work on a later-arising conflict, and that institutional screening measures must also be shown. The Court held the plaintiffs timely sought disqualification and that the absence of the required admonition justified disqualification.

The Court of Appeals (Tenth Appellate District of Texas) received Thomas Blanchard's March 2, 2026 filing titled a petition for writ of habeas corpus but construed it as a petition for a writ of mandamus because of the relief sought. The court considered the filing and denied the petition. The opinion is a short memorandum with the Chief Justice delivering the opinion and the denial issued on April 9, 2026.

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District dismissed Genie Delia Cavazos’s pro se appeal for want of prosecution after she repeatedly failed to comply with the clerk’s requests to pay the filing fee and to cure defects in her notice of appeal. The court sent five notices between October 28, 2025 and March 19, 2026 but received no response. Because Cavazos did not diligently prosecute the appeal or follow procedural rules, the court dismissed the appeal and denied the appellee’s motion to dismiss as moot.

The First District of Texas denied a pro se petitioner Ryen Michelle Staggers' request for a writ of mandamus and emergency stay. Staggers asked this Court to stay and vacate a March 27, 2026 trial-court order in an underlying child‑protection case, alleging extrinsic fraud and due-process violations. The appellate court declined relief because the mandamus record and appendix did not include the required certified copy of the March 27, 2026 order, preventing review of her claims. The court therefore denied the petition and dismissed any pending motions as moot.

The First Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency stay filed by Heather J. Taylor and Mad Hat Maven, LLC. Relators had challenged a district court's March 3, 2026 order allowing substituted service of subpoenas and a March 31, 2026 enforcement order compelling their depositions and production of documents. The appellate court declined to disturb the trial court’s orders and refused to stay the depositions scheduled for April 9, 2026, effectively leaving the trial court’s discovery and enforcement directives in place.

The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio denied DNOW L.P.'s petition for a writ of mandamus and denied as moot its emergency stay motion. DNOW filed the petition, record, and emergency motion on April 6, 2026, but the court found the filings did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3(k) and 52.7 and determined DNOW had not shown entitlement to mandamus relief under rule 52.8(a). The underlying state-court matters concern Mattea Mansell v. DNOW, L.P., pending in Zavala County district court.

The Washington Supreme Court reviewed a Commission on Judicial Conduct finding that pro tem Judge David Ruzumna used a sitting judge’s signature stamp and the King County District Court seal without permission to create a document presented for a county employee parking discount. The Court held, after de novo review, that Ruzumna violated Judicial Conduct Code rules requiring compliance with law, promoting public confidence, and avoiding abuse of judicial prestige, and that his continued untruthful explanations during proceedings compounded the misconduct. The Court adopted the Commission’s recommendation to censure and remove him from judicial office.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal filed by William Melton, II, in case A26D0404 (LC No. 23FM1024) against Jacqueline Boone and denied the application. The order, issued April 9, 2026, is a short procedural disposition that simply refuses permission to pursue an interlocutory or discretionary appeal to this court and does not address the merits of the underlying case.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered Maryam Bennett’s emergency motion asking the court to immediately stay enforcement of a lower-court order. After review, the court denied the emergency motion, so no stay was granted and the underlying order remains enforceable. The order is a short administrative disposition reflecting only the denial of the requested emergency relief and does not provide extended reasoning or discussion of the merits.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth District Court of Appeals' dismissal of Ramone Wright’s petition for a writ of mandamus against the Franklin County Municipal Court Clerk. Wright sought to compel the clerk to vacate an allegedly unconstitutional 2009 municipal-court conviction based on an apparent error in the judgment entry. The court held that Wright failed to state a mandamus claim because he did not show a clear legal right to vacatur, the clerk had no clear legal duty to vacate the judgment, and Wright had an adequate remedy by appeal. A separate request for judgment was denied as moot.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court's April 1, 2026 order upholding a decision involving Taiba Sultana's nomination petition for the Democratic nomination for state senator in the 18th Legislative District for the May 19, 2026 primary. The appeal by Taiba Sultana was considered and denied, and her separate application for a stay was dismissed as moot. One justice did not participate. The court issued a short per curiam order adopting the lower court's disposition without extended opinion.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed an appeal by Christina Marie Seeling from a Commonwealth Court order dated March 24, 2026, concerning the nomination petition of Robyn Bird for the Republican nomination for the State House 177th District in the May 19, 2026 primary. The Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision dated April 9, 2026, affirmed the Commonwealth Court's order. No further reasoning or factual detail is included in the short order beyond the affirmance.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied an appellant’s motion to supplement the record, noted jurisdiction, and affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s March 26, 2026 order. The case concerned an objection to Summer Lee’s nomination petition for the Democratic primary for the 12th U.S. Congressional District. The Supreme Court issued a brief per curiam order on April 9, 2026, leaving the lower court’s decision in place without adding materials to the record.

The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Goliath Building Services, Inc. and Joshua N. Marsalis challenging proceedings in a Bexar County court. The relators had also sought emergency temporary relief; the court found they had not shown entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief and therefore denied the mandamus petition. Because the mandamus petition was denied, the court also denied the emergency temporary relief motions as moot. The decision is a short per curiam memorandum opinion.

The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio considered Alton Crain Jr.'s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking extraordinary relief related to a pending county court case. After reviewing the petition and record, the court concluded Crain did not show entitlement to the requested relief under the appellate rules and denied the petition. The opinion is brief and delivers the disposition without extended analysis or citation to underlying facts or legal authorities.

The court dismissed Gil Rojas III’s appeal because his conviction and thirty-year sentence resulted from a plea-bargain in which the trial court certified he had no right to appeal. The appellate clerk’s record contained the Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification and the written plea agreement showing the sentence did not exceed the agreed recommendation. Because the record contained no pretrial written motion preserved for appeal, no trial-court permission to appeal, and no amended certification granting appeal rights, the court concluded it must dismiss the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d).

The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed disciplinary proceedings against attorney Javier Horacio Armengau arising from his criminal convictions for rape, kidnapping, gross sexual imposition, sexual battery, and a misdemeanor public indecency. The Board of Professional Conduct had found those convictions established violations of professional-conduct rules and recommended permanent disbarment. The court rejected Armengau’s objections — including attempts to relitigate his criminal convictions, to introduce a polygraph, and to rely on character evidence — and held certified convictions are conclusive in disciplinary matters. The court adopted the board’s findings and permanently disbarred Armengau to protect the public and preserve professional integrity.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a per curiam order dated April 8, 2026, affirmed the Commonwealth Court's April 2, 2026 order in the appeal concerning Tony Dphax King's nomination petition as the Democratic candidate for the 188th Legislative District. The Supreme Court reviewed the lower court's decision and concluded no basis existed to disturb it, resulting in affirmation of the Commonwealth Court's ruling. No additional reasoning or opinion text is provided in the document.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals denied Troy Nguyen's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court's alleged failure to rule on his consolidated Rule 306a(4) and 306a(5) motion filed January 20, 2026. The appellate court explained that to obtain mandamus for failure to rule, a relator must show the trial court had a duty to rule, that a demand was made, and that the court failed to rule within a reasonable time. Because the record did not show an unreasonable delay, the court concluded extraordinary relief was not warranted and denied the petition.

The court dismissed a mandamus complaint filed by Davontez Otis seeking an order compelling a judge to calculate jail-time credit in his underlying criminal case. Otis argued the calculation was ministerial and that appeal would be inadequate because his 90-day jail term would expire before appellate review. The court held that the statute governing jail-time credit grants the sentencing court discretion to grant or deny credit, so mandamus is not available to control that discretion; furthermore, an appeal (with a stay request) is an adequate remedy. The writ was dismissed and costs were assessed to Otis.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of inmate Patrick O. Stokes’s mandamus action seeking copies of an electronic kite and its response. Stokes filed the action against A. Combs but, in the affidavit required by R.C. 2969.25(A), failed to provide the case numbers for three appeals he said he filed within the prior five years. The court held that the statute requires strict compliance and that an inmate must list and describe all civil actions and appeals filed in the previous five years, including their case numbers, so dismissal was proper.

The Ohio Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part James Quinn’s mandamus request to compel Judge Douglas Rastatter to rule on filings in Quinn’s 2014 criminal case. Quinn had filed a petition for postconviction relief and a combined motion for leave to file a new-trial motion plus the new-trial motion itself in April 2024. Because the trial judge later denied the postconviction petition, the Court denied that part of the writ as moot. The Court held the judge must rule on the motion for leave to file a new-trial motion (Crim.R. 33(B)) but denied relief as to the substantive new-trial motion because the rules require the motions be decided sequentially.