Court Filings

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to defendants and dismissing plaintiff Shawn Broton's second amended complaint. Broton, formerly Deputy Chief of Syracuse Police, alleged constitutional and statutory claims after being denied reinstatement to a rank-and-file position in December 2017 and after an ethics investigation later found his allegations unfounded. The court held most claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations because they accrued on the December 18, 2017 denial, and alternatively found no triable issues of fact as to defendants’ entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a trial court order denying summary judgment to defendants Dr. Saurin Popat and Delaware Medical Group in a medical malpractice suit brought by Meg and Brian Bray. The court found defendants initially showed they met the standard of care, but plaintiffs submitted an expert affirmation—establishing medical licensure and board certification in endocrine surgery—that raised triable issues as to whether Dr. Popat's assessment, diagnosis, and treatment fell below the accepted standard. Because the parties’ experts conflicted, summary judgment was inappropriate and the case must proceed.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department unanimously affirmed a Supreme Court (Steuben County) order that denied plaintiff Maura Bianco's motion for summary judgment in her suit against defendant Jacqueline S. Johnson. The appellate court reviewed the lower court's December 27, 2024 order and concluded there were issues precluding summary disposition, so the matter remains for further proceedings in the trial court. The appellate decision was issued April 24, 2026 and affirmed without costs.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a trial court judgment awarding Amber Well Drilling money damages based on a jury verdict in quantum meruit. The court held that the written home-improvement contract failed to comply with General Business Law § 771, so the contractor could not enforce the contract for breach or recover contractually stipulated interest and attorneys' fees. The court nonetheless allowed recovery for completed work under unjust enrichment/quasi-contract and awarded prejudgment interest at a statutory/alternative rate. Plaintiff's broader arguments to revisit precedent and to sever the fee/interest clause were rejected.

A jury convicted Eric Lon Jones of delivery of methamphetamine (4–200 grams) in Williamson County and assessed 45 years and a $10,000 fine. On appeal Jones argued the jury charge erred by (1) failing to include a venue instruction under former article 13.04 (venue for offenses committed on or within 400 yards of county boundaries) and (2) failing to define “preponderance of the evidence.” The Court of Appeals held there was no error: article 13.04 was not applicable where the offense and prosecution occurred in the same county and the evidence locating the buy in Williamson County was undisputed, and the court was not required to define “preponderance of the evidence.” The conviction was affirmed.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals reviewed Christopher Devontae Bennett’s appeal after the trial court adjudicated his guilt for sexual assault of a child and sentenced him to 18 years’ confinement following violations of court-ordered community supervision. Bennett’s appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw with an Anders brief stating the appeal is frivolous. The appellate court independently reviewed the record, found no arguable grounds for reversal, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court’s adjudication and sentence. The court advised Bennett of his rights and noted he filed no pro se brief.

The Court of Appeals (Sixth District) affirmed the trial court's revocation of Roy Cletdell Robinson's community supervision for a state-jail felony possession conviction. Robinson was alleged to have failed to report for supervision (March–May 2025), failed to provide a valid address, failed to perform required community service, and failed to pay fines and costs. The court found the evidence (including testimony from Robinson and his supervision officer) sufficient by a preponderance to support revocation, and held Robinson forfeited his claim that his due-process rights were violated because he failed to timely object at the revocation hearing.

The Texas court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s revocation of Roy Cletdell Robinson’s five-year community supervision for evading arrest with a prior conviction. Robinson argued the evidence was insufficient to support revocation and that the trial court violated his due process rights by relying on hearsay probation officer testimony without a business records affidavit. The appellate court applied the same standards and analysis used in Robinson’s companion appeal, found no reversible error, and concluded the trial court properly revoked supervision. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

The Texas Supreme Court (Justice Hawkins, joined by two justices) concurred with the Court’s opinion holding that the plaintiffs qualify as prevailing parties entitled to attorney’s fees under a specific Texas statute. The concurrence explains that although the trial court labeled the relief a "temporary injunction," the statutory scheme at issue makes such relief effectively final because disclosure of information cannot be undone. Because the defendants complied and the information was disclosed, the plaintiffs obtained ultimate relief and thus prevailed for fee-shifting purposes.

The Texas Supreme Court held that two former Webb Consolidated ISD board members who obtained a trial-court temporary injunction ordering the district to produce requested board materials qualified as "prevailing" under Texas Education Code § 11.1512(c-2) and may recover reasonable attorney’s fees for the relief obtained. The court explained that although temporary injunctions normally preserve the status quo and do not confer prevailing-party status, the injunction here effectively granted the only relief the statute authorizes — production of requested information — and the district complied. The court also held board members need not exhaust administrative remedies before suing under § 11.1512(c-2). The case is remanded for determination of recoverable fees limited to the injunction-related claims.

The Texas Supreme Court granted mandamus to direct the trial court to enter summary judgment for Bell Helicopter. The family of a pilot who died in a 2017 helicopter crash sued Bell, claiming the flight manual failed to warn adequately about flying with a loose engine cowling. Bell invoked the federal General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA), which bars suits against manufacturers brought more than 18 years after delivery unless a "new" part that is alleged to have caused the accident was added or replaced within 18 years. The Court held the manual revisions did not restart GARA’s 18-year clock because none of the changes constituted a new part alleged to have caused the crash.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam order affirming a prior trial-court denial of Geneva M. Kellum’s postconviction motion in Duval County criminal case number 16-2009-CF-006375-A. The court warned that Kellum’s continued filing of repetitive, abusive, or frivolous pro se postconviction claims arising from that case could lead to sanctions, including a prohibition on further pro se filings in this court and referral to prison officials for disciplinary measures. The caution cites state statute and precedent supporting restrictions on serial frivolous filings.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Michael Christopher Thompson's appeal from a Santa Rosa County circuit court decision and, in a short per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion contains only the single-word disposition “AFFIRMED” with no published reasoning. The panel of three judges concurred, and the decision notes that it is not final until any timely motion under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 is resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court decision in a criminal matter. The opinion is per curiam, with three judges concurring, and affirms the judgment of the circuit court for Santa Rosa County. No additional reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis is provided in this short opinion; it simply announces that the appellate court has reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's ruling, and notifies parties of the right to file certain post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

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 District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reviewed an appeal by Jessica Witvoet from a Manatee County circuit court decision in a family-related case against Steven Witvoet. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published with this order. The judgment of the trial court therefore stands as affirmed, and the panel of judges concurred.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's partial summary judgment holding that Willis A. Smith Construction, Inc. (WASC) is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity in a wrongful-death/negligence suit brought by the estate of Phillip Keathley. The underlying accident occurred when Keathley fell while preparing a subcontractor bid for West Shore on a USF restoration project. The court concluded WASC had a contract with USF but did not sublet any portion of that contractual obligation to West Shore because West Shore never submitted a bid or entered an enforceable subcontract with WASC.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a premises-liability or related negligence appeal brought by Joan Randazzo against Walgreens, 8951 Hudson LLC, and Dynaserv Florida, LLC. The appellate panel issued a brief per curiam decision concluding the lower court's ruling was correct and required no change. The court did not publish a full opinion here; the judgment below therefore stands as reviewed and affirmed without published reasoning in this entry.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal brought by Anthony R. Medina from a decision of the Circuit Court for Manatee County. The District Court of Appeal summarily affirmed the lower court's judgment without published opinion on April 24, 2026. The per curiam decision states only the disposition (affirmed) and notes concurrence by the three judges; no explanatory reasoning or legal analysis is included in the document provided.

The appellate court reviewed Jakina Lynum's appeal from a Hillsborough County circuit court judgment involving the Department of Revenue, Child Support Program, and Keevin-Austin Smith. The Second District issued a brief per curiam opinion and affirmed the lower court's decision without published opinion or noted briefing by appellees. The panel unanimously affirmed the judgment, with Judges Khouzam, Atkinson, and Labrit concurring. No reasoning, factual background, or citations were provided in the opinion beyond the affirmance and procedural origin.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute involving David Laurine and several family members and the estate/trust of Robert Laurine. The appellate court reviewed the record and the parties' arguments and concluded there was no reversible error warranting reversal or modification of the lower court's judgment. The opinion is per curiam, short, and does not elaborate reasoning beyond affirming the trial court's ruling, with all three judges concurring.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute involving David Laurine and several family-related appellees, including Victoria A. Shupe in various capacities. The appeal from the Pinellas County circuit court was heard on the record and the panel issued a per curiam opinion, affirming the lower court's ruling without published opinion. The court provided no extended reasoning in this short entry and the judgment of the circuit court therefore stands as affirmed.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a county court judgment in a criminal or quasi-criminal matter involving Mark Alan Lane, who appealed pro se against the State of Florida. The opinion is unpublished and brief: the panel issued a per curiam decision stating simply 'Affirmed' without extended explanation. The court's judgment upholds the lower court's ruling and leaves the county court's decision intact. No detailed reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis appears in the published entry.

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 Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a county court decision in a case where Mark Alan Lane appealed a judgment involving the State of Florida. The appeal was taken pro se by Lane and argued by the Assistant County Attorney for the State. The appellate panel issued a per curiam opinion on April 24, 2026, without published reasoning in the opinion summary, and the court affirmed the lower court's decision. All three judges concurred.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, affirmed the judgment below in an appeal by Chad Krueger against the State of Florida. The court issued a per curiam decision, without published reasoning in this slip opinion, concluding the lower court's ruling should stand. The panel of three judges concurred, and the opinion may still be revised before official publication.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court decision in a criminal matter. The appeal, filed by Gregory Brett Johnson, was considered on the record from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion simply stating 'Affirmed' without further explanation; three judges concurred. No substantive reasoning, discussion of issues, or citation of authorities appears in the published entry provided.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, issued a brief per curiam decision affirming a lower-court ruling. The appeal was brought by Joshua Jennings against Richard Clark from the Hillsborough County Circuit Court. The appellate panel, with all three judges concurring, affirmed the trial court's decision without published opinion and noted the opinion may be revised before official publication. No further reasoning or factual background is provided in the document.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Gerald Harrell's postconviction motion but found a clerical error in the dismissal directive. The judgment below correctly dismissed Harrell's motion for postconviction relief, yet the written order mistakenly identified the November 20, 2023 motion as dismissed with prejudice when it should have referred to the November 22, 2023 motion. The case is therefore remanded solely to correct that scrivener's error in the order; no change was made to the substantive dismissal.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reviewed an appeal by Lorenzo Gulley, Jr. from a Pinellas County circuit court decision. After considering the record and briefs, the panel issued a per curiam opinion affirming the lower court's decision. The court provided no published opinion or detailed reasoning in this entry; the judgment of the trial court therefore stands as affirmed by the appellate court.