Court Filings

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Alexandria Kung’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion and upheld the entry of final judgment for State Farm. Kung had sued State Farm over the appraisal-based valuation of two stolen personal articles. After State Farm obtained an appraisal and issued payment, the trial court entered summary judgment. Kung sought relief from judgment claiming lack of notice, attorney withdrawal, and alleged improper influence of the appraisal umpire. The appellate court concluded Kung failed to timely appeal the summary-judgment order, could not use Civ.R. 60(B) as a substitute for a direct appeal, and did not demonstrate entitlement to relief on the record.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Matthew Joy’s two-count complaint against The MetroHealth System. Joy alleged breach of contract and wrongful termination for reporting patient-safety concerns, relying on a March 2022 reappointment letter and MetroHealth’s employee handbook and a reporting policy. The court held that the documents did not create an employment contract or modify at-will status, and Joy failed to plead a specific source of law showing a clear public policy prohibiting his termination. Because the pleadings and attached writings could not support relief as a matter of law, judgment on the pleadings was proper.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s grant of legal custody and designation of the father as the residential parent of A.C.-L., following a custody application by the father under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2). The mother appealed pro se arguing lack of notice, failure to consider custodial history and documentary evidence, absence of an active guardian ad litem, erroneous factual findings, an unfavorable exchange time, and improper child-support handling. The appellate court reviewed for plain error because the mother did not file transcripts below, found no prejudice from the GAL’s nonparticipation, and concluded the juvenile court acted within its discretion and applied the statutory best-interest standard, so it affirmed.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Tuscarawas County Common Pleas Court's judgment after Lee Stiffler pleaded no contest to failure to comply with a police officer and resisting arrest and received two years of community control. Stiffler challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress, arguing the officer could read his temporary tag, the tag was in plain view, he did not drive onto a curb, and his agitation did not justify further detention. The appellate court found the trial court's factual findings credible, held that the officer reasonably detained Stiffler to check license/registration/insurance under governing precedents, and determined there was reasonable suspicion to detain for sobriety testing.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Robert Phelps' petition for post-conviction relief as untimely. Phelps had pleaded guilty in 2020 and was sentenced pursuant to a negotiated 15-year term; his direct-appeal transcript was filed June 8, 2021. He filed the post-conviction petition on September 4, 2025, beyond the 365-day statutory deadline. The court held the petition did not meet the narrow statutory exceptions allowing consideration of untimely petitions, and therefore the trial court correctly dismissed without findings or an evidentiary hearing.

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment finding Marysville Animal Care Center, LLC breached an employment agreement with Dr. Cassie Wooden by failing to timely offer her either a partnership interest or a $45,000 bonus after three years of employment. The magistrate and trial court found the parties had orally modified Dr. Wooden’s work schedule to three clinic days per week by course of conduct, so the December 7, 2021 partnership offer conditioned on returning to four clinic days did not cure the earlier breach. The court rejected appellant’s challenges to factual findings, parol-evidence rulings, credibility determinations, and alleged bias.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County trial court’s denial of Robert Lindsey’s amended petition for postconviction relief. Lindsey had been convicted of murder for stabbing his mother; he argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate potential prior abuse more fully, not consulting a domestic-violence expert, and failing to seek a no‑duty‑to‑retreat jury instruction. The appellate court found counsel’s investigation and strategic choices reasonable based on the record and Lindsey’s own statements, and held that even if some investigation was lacking, there was no reasonable probability the outcome would have changed.

The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County Common Pleas Court's grant of summary judgment to The Huntington National Bank in a breach-of-loan case. The bank sued Xiaowei He for unpaid balances under a June 15, 2021 loan; the trial court found He defaulted and owed $19,187.69. The appeals court rejected He’s arguments that the case should have been dismissed for lack of prosecution, that the bank lacked standing because it sold the loan, and that fraud by a third party relieved her of liability. The court held the loan was charged-off (not sold) and remained enforceable, and no genuine factual dispute precluded judgment.

The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County trial court's July 21, 2025 judgment denying appellant Christina Bushong's Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. The court held that the parties' November 17, 2023 memorandum of agreement did not itself dismiss the case because no journalized dismissal entry was filed, so the trial court retained jurisdiction to resolve the child-support issues. The court also found appellant failed to timely appeal the June 24, 2025 judgment adopting a magistrate's contempt decision, so the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review that portion of the proceedings.

The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas’ grant of summary judgment to the Director of the Ohio Division of Cannabis Control. Bear River Dispensaries (appellant) sold its medical marijuana certificate before applying for an adult-use dispensary license under former R.C. 3780.10(B). The court held the statute unambiguously requires applicants to possess a medical certificate at the time of application, not merely have possessed one earlier, so the Division correctly denied appellant’s adult-use application and the trial court properly entered judgment for the Division.

The Superior Court affirmed the Orphans’ Court decree that denied Jacob Singer’s petition to compel burial arrangements for his father, Irvin Michael Singer. The Orphans’ Court had stayed burial pending a hearing after Jacob alleged his brother and executor, David Singer, planned a private burial and excluded siblings. The Superior Court held that a valid will appointed David as executor and expressly directed burial in the family plot, and that Section 305 of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code is subject to a decedent’s valid will. Because the will gave the executor authority over burial, Jacob’s majority-next-of-kin argument failed.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that when a contract is governed by the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA), a consumer may rescind the home-improvement contract within three business days by giving actual notice of cancellation to the contractor even if that notice is not in writing. The Office of Attorney General sued Gillece for refusing to honor timely oral or other non-written cancellations; the trial court granted partial summary judgment and issued an injunction, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed. The Supreme Court concluded HICPA’s specific, later-enacted consumer-protection rescission rule controls over any general written-notice language in the older UTPCPL.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected Gillece’s argument that a consumer’s oral cancellation of a home-improvement contract is ineffective unless followed by written notice. The court concluded that the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law are meant to protect consumers, and that requiring written follow-up would undermine that purpose when a seller knows a consumer asked to cancel. The court therefore held sellers must honor an oral cancellation for contracts covered by the home‑improvement law and emphasized best practices of documenting cancellations in writing.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court's order on April 30, 2026, resolving an appeal brought by Elliot-Todd Parker Koger and Todd Elliott Koger Sr. (the "Koger Family") against multiple state entities and officials including the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency and county court officers. The Supreme Court issued a short per curiam order that simply states the Commonwealth Court's decision is affirmed, without extended opinion or additional reasoning in this document. The procedural posture shows this appeal follows the Commonwealth Court's September 5, 2025 order in a matter previously litigated and identified at this Court's earlier docket entries.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court and trial court orders dismissing Clearfield County’s lawsuit against construction professionals as time-barred by the 12-year construction statute of repose, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5536. The County argued the common-law doctrine nullum tempus (no time runs against the sovereign) should toll the repose period, but the Court held nullum tempus cannot be used to defeat a statute of repose. Because a statute of repose abolishes causes of action after a fixed period and is not subject to tolling, the County’s claims, filed decades after construction finished, were jurisdictionally barred.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s decision that the Borough of West Chester’s municipal “stream protection fee” is a local tax, not a fee for service. The Borough had enacted the charge to fund stormwater management and compliance with federal and state stormwater regulations; universities (PASSHE and West Chester University) challenged it as an unlawful tax on exempt entities or as an improper fee. The Court held the Borough acted in its public capacity, providing a general public benefit and lacking a voluntary contractual relationship with property owners, so the charge functions as a tax from which the universities are immune.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice concurred with the majority in holding that the Borough’s stormwater charge functions as a tax rather than a fee because the proceeds fund broad, community-wide projects (tree planting, street sweeping, regrading alleys, rain gardens, curb extensions) that benefit the public generally rather than providing specific, measurable services to West Chester University. The concurrence explains that when charges fund generalized environmental and beautification projects remote from the university, the nexus to runoff from university property is too thin to qualify as a fee. The justice reserved judgment on different fact patterns where proceeds are spent solely on direct stormwater remediation or where charges are closely tied to individual property runoff.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court and upheld the trial court’s denial of the Commonwealth’s motion to nolle prosequi charges of negligent simple assault against former officer Stuart Harrison. The Commonwealth argued its key eyewitness had died and, without that testimony, it could not prove criminal negligence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held the trial court applied the correct Reinhart standard — evaluating whether the Commonwealth’s stated reasons were valid and reasonable — and found other available witnesses provided sufficient evidence to allow trial, so the nolle prosequi was not justified.

Justice Dougherty concurred in part and dissented in part from the Court’s decision affirming the Superior Court’s judgment in Commonwealth v. Harrison. He would have reversed the Superior Court’s published opinion and remanded for application of this Court’s binding precedent (particularly Commonwealth v. Reinhart and Commonwealth v. DiPasquale) governing judicial review of a prosecutor’s motion to nolle prosequi. He criticizes the Superior Court for adopting a de novo standard for review and the majority for affirming on an alternate ground and addressing issues the Commonwealth did not raise, while warning about separation-of-powers concerns and unresolved practical consequences of the decision.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Part's April 4, 2025 order reinstating and enforcing child support arrears owed by Shawn J. Harris to his ex-wife, Della M. Bournes. The court found New Jersey properly registered and enforced a Texas child-support order under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), and that a November/October 2024 administrative USSO that closed enforcement improperly vacated arrears. Because the anti-retroactivity statute does not bar cancelling or reinstating arrears tied to a child's emancipation and Harris never obtained a retroactive reduction by court motion, the judge correctly reinstated arrears and denied Harris's cross-motion.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the denial of defendant 494 Eighth Avenue LLC’s summary judgment motion in a personal-injury sidewalk-trip case. Plaintiff said she tripped on an uneven sidewalk near a disassembled police barricade and testified the height differential was about one to one-and-a-half inches. The court held the defendant failed to show the alleged defect was trivial as a matter of law because the submitted photos and affidavit were inconclusive and the superintendent’s estimate was not a measured fact. Plaintiff’s testimony and possible violation of the NYC Administrative Code created questions of fact for trial.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment after a nonjury trial in a lease dispute between Rose Group Park Avenue LLC (tenant) and Third Church Christ, Scientist of New York City (landlord). The court held that the lease's audit provisions limit the landlord to auditing only the prior lease year and bar audits seeking information from earlier years; directed certain payroll records be included in future audits; required return of the landlord's protested payment except for amounts the court found due from the tenant's affiliate; and upheld various declaratory and injunctive rulings concerning weekday use, occupancy rights, equipment use, alterations, signage, and auditorium setup. The court grounded its decision in the express lease language and prior appellate rulings interpreting those provisions.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment holding the plaintiff liable on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim. The plaintiff testified he slipped on gravel and fell into an unguarded trench up to 10–12 feet deep alongside a building foundation; the trench had a makeshift pathway but no guardrail. The court found this testimony uncontradicted and held defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact or justify the absence of a guardrail as necessary to the work. The judgment for plaintiff on liability was therefore upheld.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the conviction and sentence of Stephanie Rodriguez. Rodriguez appealed a June 22, 2022 judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County. After oral argument and consideration, the appellate court found the sentence was not excessive and therefore upheld the trial court's judgment. The opinion is a brief affirmance without extended written opinion and refers defense counsel to the court's procedural rule § 606.5.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Luis Mendez’s convictions for attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and third-degree burglary and his concurrent sentences. The court held Mendez validly waived his right to appeal, which bars review of his suppression challenge, and alternatively found the trial court correctly denied suppression. The court accepted credibility findings and concluded police lawfully approached based on an intelligence report about a trend of firearms in fanny packs, observed a street-crossing violation, and legitimately pursued Mendez when he fled, making the abandonment of the fanny pack and the discovery of the gun lawful.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Michael T. Jackson's conviction and sentence after a guilty plea for criminal possession of a firearm, rejecting his challenges. The court held Jackson validly waived his right to appeal, which bars review of his excessive-sentence and most probation-condition claims. A facial challenge to the statute's "good moral character" licensing provision survives waiver and Jackson has standing, but the claim was unpreserved and not reviewed in the interest of justice; alternatively the court found it meritless. Ineffective-assistance claims based on counsel's failure to raise that argument must be pursued in a CPL 440.10 motion and were otherwise rejected on the record.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the Bronx County Supreme Court judgment entered December 17, 2024, in the criminal case against Joshua Brooks. The appeal challenged the sentence, but the appellate court, after argument and deliberation, found the sentence not excessive and affirmed. The decision is brief and focuses solely on the review of the sentence; no change to the conviction or sentence was ordered. Counsel for the appellant was referred to the court's Rule 606.5.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a lower court order requiring petitioner Harold Peerenboom to reimburse Marvel Entertainment, LLC for reasonable production expenses incurred in responding to a subpoena. The court held that under New York's CPLR the party seeking discovery must pay a nonparty's reasonable production costs, and that such costs can include third-party vendor charges and attorneys' fees. The court also upheld the trial court's reductions to requested attorney rates and rejected petitioner's reliance on federal balancing tests and arguments that certain withholding-related costs were categorically unrecoverable.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Family Court orders that found respondent mother neglected her eldest child and derivatively neglected two other children. The court concluded, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the mother choked the eldest child, pulled and ripped the child's shirt, and caused scratches; the child’s out-of-court statement was corroborated by a caseworker’s observation and photographs. The court also found the mother committed acts of domestic violence during the same incident and that the other children were present, supporting derivative neglect because the mother’s conduct created a substantial risk of harm.

The First Department unanimously affirmed a Bronx County Supreme Court order that required the Archdiocese of New York to produce certain documents (with specified redactions) and denied the Archdiocese's request to vacate that order or to obtain a protective order. The court held that evidence about the Archdiocese's patterns or practices in responding to allegations of clergy sexual abuse is discoverable because it could show a deliberate, repetitive practice of silencing accusations and therefore bear on the Archdiocese's negligence in the plaintiff's specific abuse claim. The appellate court rejected the Archdiocese's other arguments without discussion.