Court Filings

The Appellate Division affirmed the Public Employment Relations Commission's decision allowing twenty-eight employees in eleven job titles at Kean University, Montclair State University, and The College of New Jersey to be members of collective bargaining units represented by the AFT or CWA. The State argued those positions were managerial executives and thus excluded from union membership, but PERC (and the Director whose factual findings PERC adopted) found the positions did not formulate or direct the effectuation of management policy without independent review by higher-level supervisors. The court found PERC's application of statutory language and precedent reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious.

The Second District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed a county court judgment in a criminal/procedural matter. The appeal was brought pro se by Rosea Maria White and was argued on the record from Pinellas County before Judge Diane M. Croff. The panel, in a per curiam decision, unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling without published opinion, and the judgment stands as decided by the county court. No additional reasoning or substantive analysis was provided in the published entry.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court. The appeal was brought by Jennifer Suzanne Waters against the State of Florida following a proceeding in the Circuit Court for DeSoto County. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment without a published opinion, and all three judges concurred. No new legal analysis or changes to the trial-court outcome were announced in this short entry.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute between Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc. (doing business as JET ICU) and two Blue Cross entities. The appeal challenged the circuit court's judgment, but the appellate court, in a per curiam opinion, concluded that the lower-court ruling should stand and issued an affirmance without published opinion. The panel unanimously agreed to affirm, with no extended written analysis included in the opinion provided.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, affirmed a county court decision in an appeal brought by Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc. (d/b/a Jet ICU) against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company (d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana). The opinion is per curiam, short, and simply states the judgment was affirmed without published reasoning in this entry. The panel of judges Lucas (C.J.), Kelly, and Smith concurred. The decision was filed April 17, 2026.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed a pro se appeal by Monika Margarethe Shirley from an order of the Sarasota County Circuit Court. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published beyond the single-word disposition, and no appellee participated in the appeal. The panel of judges Silberman, Morris, and Black concurred in the affirmance.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, considered an appeal by Marquise Devon Ponder from a decision of the Circuit Court for Manatee County. After review, the appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision simply stating 'Affirmed' without opinion, thereby upholding the lower court's judgment. The panel of judges (Kelly, Khouzam, and Sleet) concurred. No further reasoning or discussion was provided in the published entry, and the opinion is subject to possible revision before official publication.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed the lower court's decision in the appeal brought by Scott Meier against the State of Florida. The panel issued a per curiam opinion on April 17, 2026, concluding that the trial court's judgment should stand. No reasoning or detailed factual findings were provided in the published entry, and three judges (Black, Atkinson, Smith) concurred. The appeal arose from the Manatee County Circuit Court before Judge Frederick P. Mercurio.

The appellate court reviewed a criminal appeal by Markeis Daveon Levatte from a Hillsborough County circuit court decision. After briefing and substitution of counsel, the District Court of Appeal for the Second District issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The opinion was short and did not include detailed reasoning in the published entry, but the panel concurred and the judgment remained in effect pending any further review or official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling in a case where Hydro-Dyne Engineering, Inc. appealed from a Pinellas County circuit court decision involving Michael Williams, Scott Griffith, Cornerstone Mechanical, LLC, and Cornerstone H20, LLC. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. The appellate court issued a one-line per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment, with three judges concurring. No further opinion or reasoning was provided in the published docket entry.

The appellate court reviewed a pro se appeal by Norman Chris Hrabovsky from an order of the Pinellas County Circuit Court involving Trask Daigneault, LLP and two individual defendants. After considering the parties' submissions, the Second District affirmed the lower court's decision. The per curiam opinion provides no extended factual or legal analysis in the published entry, simply announcing the affirmance and noting concurrence by the three judges. No further explanation of the circuit court's reasoning or the issues decided is included in the short published entry.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Yordan Hernandez from a decision of the Hillsborough County Circuit Court. After considering the parties' submissions, the appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's ruling. The short per curiam opinion provides the disposition without published reasoning, and the decision is subject to possible revision before official publication.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal by K.H. concerning a dependency matter involving the child Z.A. The Department of Children and Families and the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office were appellees. After considering the record and arguments, the court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower circuit court's ruling. The opinion contains no extended discussion of facts or legal reasoning and simply affirms the trial court's decision without published opinion.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The appeal was taken by Patrick Gilles from an order of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, presided over by Judge Lindsay Alvarez. Both parties appeared pro se. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision without published opinion and the panel of judges concurred.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision in a dispute involving members and the estate of Emma Jean Baldwin. The appeal was brought pro se by Chad R. Baldwin against the estate and several relatives. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion stating only 'Affirmed' without published reasoning, and the panel of three judges concurred. The decision leaves the lower court's judgment intact and ends this stage of appellate review.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reviewed an appeal by A.R. from a decision of the Circuit Court for Pasco County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. No opinion content or underlying facts, issues, or reasoning are provided in the published entry; the court simply announced 'Affirmed' with three judges concurring and noted the opinion is subject to revision before official publication.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a Rule 3.800(a) postconviction claim brought by Deanijah Denson. The court concluded the appeal did not provide a basis for relief under Rule 3.800(a) but left open Denson's ability to seek relief in the underlying circuit court case (2020-CF-002358-A) under Rule 3.850. The opinion cites precedent explaining the proper procedural vehicle for the relief sought and therefore affirms the appellate disposition while directing the appellant to the appropriate remedy in circuit court.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in a pro se 3.800 postconviction appeal brought by Charles James Skolnick challenging denial of relief in Duval County (Case No. 16-2015-CF-009362-A). The court notes it previously affirmed the trial court's denial and found Skolnick's subsequent filings in this court relating to that case to be repetitive, frivolous, and abusive. The court cautioned that further frivolous pro se filings may trigger sanctions, including prohibition on future pro se filings and referral for prison disciplinary proceedings that could include loss of gain time.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed Stephanie Proffitt’s convictions and rejected her claim that the trial court imposed a vindictive sentence after she declined the State’s plea offer. The court reviewed the record and Wilson factors, finding the trial judge did not initiate plea negotiations, did not depart from the role of an impartial arbiter, and provided reasons for the sentence based on trial evidence and rejection of mitigation. Because the totality of circumstances did not create a presumption of vindictiveness, the appellate court affirmed the sentencing decision.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a family/domestic case (circuit court for Polk County) in which Ernie Blazeff appealed from an order involving Vladimir Ohayon. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion simply stating 'AFFIRMED' and citing Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). No additional factual findings or substantive reasoning are provided in the opinion; the panel unanimously concurred. The clerk notes the opinion is not final until the rehearing period expires.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment in a dispute between Dr. Gary Boraks, LLC (as assignee of Runnell D. Curry) and the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA). The court held that FIGA is not generally liable for attorney’s fees under section 627.428 and may only be assessed fees under the limited exception in section 631.70 when FIGA affirmatively denies a covered claim other than by delay. The court relied on statutory text and precedent limiting FIGA’s obligations to policy limits (up to statutory caps), interest as provided, and attorney’s fees only in that narrow circumstance.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment rejecting challenges by Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association and Rincon Valley Mobilehome Park. Western argued (1) that during a declared state of emergency the statutory definition of “rental price” allows routine annual CPI rent increases despite Penal Code § 396’s 10% cap, and (2) that after the emergency owners may “recoup” denied CPI increases by resetting future baseline rents. The court held the statute must be read to fix the baseline rental amount as of the emergency declaration, so the 10% cap applies, and Santa Rosa’s rent ordinance does not compel the post-emergency recoupment Western sought.

A jury convicted Tyriq Bradford of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Bradford appealed, arguing the trial court erred by admitting three out-of-court statements by the six-year-old victim identifying him, over hearsay and confrontation objections. The court concluded the statements were admissible as excited utterances and also were non-testimonial, and that the victim’s presence and limited testimony at trial satisfied confrontation requirements. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion on hearsay and the Confrontation Clause was not violated, the conviction was affirmed.

The Texas Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s default judgment against appellant Nicholas Lind in a suit by investors M3 Fort Worth Developer, LLC and The YoungESTone, LLC. M3 and YO invested in residential development projects run by Serene and Windridge, paid management and construction fees, and sued after projects stalled. Lind was served with the original petition but not the first amended petition; the trial court entered default judgment and later a damages judgment. The appellate court held lack of re-service was not error because the amended petition did not seek more onerous relief, and any challenge to sufficiency of evidence failed because securities claims under the Texas Securities Act do not require proof of loss causation.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s Final Decree of Divorce between Chukwuemeka Carl Runyon and Bianca Bazile Runyon. After a bench trial, the trial court divided the community estate, appointed both parents joint managing conservators, gave the mother the right to determine the child’s primary residence (with a geographic restriction allowing residence in Brazos County or within 50 miles of Orlando, Florida), and ordered father to pay $1,840 per month in child support. The court found no abuse of discretion in the property division, the relocation decision, or the refusal to grant a child-support credit for travel expenses, given the record and applicable family-law standards.

The Texas Court of Appeals (Tenth Appellate District) affirmed Dana Loment Pettigrew’s convictions for two counts of indecency with a child by contact and exposure. Pettigrew challenged admission of extraneous-offense testimony from L.H. under article 38.37 (as-applied facial challenge, Rule 403 balancing, and jury instruction) and claimed his counsel denied him the right to testify at the guilt-innocence phase. The court held the statute was not unconstitutional as applied, the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403, the article 38.37 jury instruction was proper, and Pettigrew failed to show prejudice from counsel’s failure to reopen the evidence; thus the convictions and sentences were affirmed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed a bench-trial judgment awarding Douglas Fuhrman $187,244 plus $30,782.58 in attorney’s fees after he sued his ex-wife, Nancy Fuhrman, for breach of the 2020 agreed divorce decree’s tax-allocation provisions. The trial court found the decree was a valid contract, Douglas performed (Deloitte prepared and filed the 2020 returns), Nancy breached by failing to pay her allocated share, and Douglas suffered damages. The appellate court held the record (tax returns, expert testimony, decree language) provided legally and factually sufficient support for the trial court’s findings and legal conclusions.

The Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s temporary injunction preventing four former CRNA employees from providing CRNA services within 20 miles of any location where they worked for their former employer, Anesthesia Associates, for three years. Anesthesia Associates sued after the CRNAs resigned and began working for a competitor at a local hospital, alleging breach of noncompetition and irreparable harm. The appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion: the employer showed a legitimate protectable interest (goodwill, specialized training, credentialing), probable success on the claim at trial, and probable irreparable injury that could not be adequately remedied by money damages.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed Victor Rolando Corpus’s convictions for continuous sexual abuse of a child and indecency with a child. Corpus sought a continuance at trial because subpoenaed psychiatric/hospital records for a State witness had not arrived. The trial court denied the oral motion after efforts to locate the records and the court’s concern that delay could be indefinite. The appeals court held Corpus waived the complaint because the continuance motion was unsworn and, alternatively, that the court did not abuse its discretion because the missing records were not shown to be unexpectedly unavailable or likely to be obtained with a finite delay, and Corpus showed no harm from the denial.

A Texas appellate court affirmed the convictions of Noel Amador-Castillo for continuous sexual abuse of a young child and attempted indecency with a child by contact. The jury had convicted him of continuous sexual abuse (multiple acts over years) and the lesser-included offense of attempted indecency by breast touching, and sentenced him to concurrent prison terms. The court rejected a double-jeopardy challenge because the breast-touching offense is distinct from the acts alleged as predicates for continuous sexual abuse. It also held the victim’s testimony was legally sufficient to support both convictions.