Court Filings

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.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the candidate Mark Lavelle leave to file an amended jurisdictional statement and to supplement his brief after receiving trial notes, but otherwise affirmed the Commonwealth Court's prior order. The appeal concerned Lavelle's nomination petition for the Democratic primary for the 177th Legislative District. The court noted jurisdiction and allowed procedural relief to complete the appellate record, while concluding that the Commonwealth Court's disposition should stand. A concurring opinion was filed by Justice Brobson, joined by Justices Dougherty and Mundy.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed an appeal by Todd Elliot Koger, Sr. challenging a Commonwealth Court order concerning his nomination petition as the Democratic candidate for the 34th Legislative District. After consideration, the Supreme Court entered a per curiam order on April 7, 2026, affirming the Commonwealth Court's March 25, 2026 decision. The Supreme Court did not provide extended opinion or additional reasoning in this short order, simply affirming the lower court's disposition and ending the appeal at the state supreme court level.

The Georgia Court of Appeals denied Willie G. Smith’s emergency motion asking for a stay and enforcement of the Cambron remedy. The filing was an urgent request to halt some action and to require implementation of a particular remedy described as the Cambron remedy; the court considered the motion and refused it. The order is brief and dispositive: the Court did not grant emergency relief and left whatever underlying proceedings or remedies in place without modification by this order.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Lorain County Common Pleas Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nancy Vega, holding she is entitled to participate in the Ohio workers’ compensation system. Vega fell at work and injured her shoulder; the court concluded her fall was an “unexplained fall” under Waller v. Mayfield, meaning it arose from a neutral risk tied to the workplace. Because Vega eliminated idiopathic (personal) causes and there was no evidence of a non-employment cause, an inference arose that the injury was work-related. The BWC forfeited its challenge by not participating in initial briefing.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals dismissed Jeffrey A. Swiecicki’s pro se appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Swiecicki appealed a February 6, 2026 magistrate’s decision, but the court determined the decision was not a final, appealable order because the trial court had not yet adopted the magistrate’s decision or entered judgment disposing of all claims. Under Ohio law, only a judge’s final order is appealable; magistrate decisions remain interlocutory until the trial court acts. The court granted the appellee’s motion to dismiss and noted the appellant may appeal after a final judgment is entered in the trial court.

The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s dispositions adjudicating R.G. and R.C. juvenile traffic offenders. Both juveniles challenged the denial of motions to suppress statements they made to police without receiving Miranda warnings. The appellate court concluded the encounters occurred at the juveniles’ workplace, were brief and unrestrained, and did not involve physical restraint, threats, or coercive tactics; therefore the questioning was not custodial and Miranda warnings were not required. The court also found the statements were voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.

The Ohio Supreme Court denied an inmate’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to force the Grafton Correctional Institution warden to place him in the opioid-treatment track (OTP) of the state medication-assisted-treatment (MAT) program. The court found that the inmate did not show by clear and convincing evidence that he had a clear legal right to receive buprenorphine or methadone specifically, or that the warden had a clear legal duty to provide that particular treatment. The court also held the inmate had an adequate remedy at law (a motion to enforce the trial court’s amended order).

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an emergency motion from James Caparco seeking a supersedeas (stay) and denied that motion on April 2, 2026. The order is brief and procedural: the court did not grant a stay of the lower-court action or judgment while further proceedings continue. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning is provided in the document; the entry simply records the denial and the clerk’s certification.

The Ohio Supreme Court denied as moot Joshua D. Cook’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking surveillance video from Chillicothe Correctional Institution because the records custodian, Natalie Magee, provided access to the requested footage and mailed a DVD copy to an agent designated by Cook. The court also denied Cook’s request for statutory damages because Magee offered him the opportunity to view the footage on the same day he filed the mandamus action, and Cook did not provide evidence the mailed DVD was corrupted. The court concluded no outstanding record remained to compel.