Court Filings

The Texas Third Court of Appeals denied David Paul Shipp's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a Williamson County court action. The opinion is a brief memorandum disposition that grants no relief and cites the appellate rule for denial. No extended reasoning or factual discussion is provided in the published entry. The petition remains unresolved in the trial court as a result of this denial, and the appellate court provided no substantive ruling on the merits.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an Application for Discretionary Appeal in the matter titled In re L. D. et al., Children (Mother) and on April 16, 2026 issued an order denying the application. The order is a short administrative disposition: the court declined to exercise discretionary review and did not reach the merits of the underlying juvenile or parental-rights proceedings. No opinion or reasoning is provided in the order beyond the denial itself.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an Application for Discretionary Appeal in the criminal case captioned TZVI YEHUDA STRAUSS v. THE STATE (LC No. 25CR00175) and issued a short order on April 16, 2026. The court denied the application for discretionary appeal, meaning it declined to review the lower court's decision. No written opinion or reasoning is included in the order; the denial is a discretionary procedural ruling rather than a substantive decision on the merits.

The First District Court of Appeal denied Walter Jim Roberson Jr.'s petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court exercised its original jurisdiction to consider the petition and, without an opinion, entered a per curiam order denying relief. The denial means the court found no basis to grant the petition or to disturb the underlying appellate result. The decision was issued April 16, 2026, and three judges concurred.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal denied Matthew Evans's petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of an action involving the Florida Department of Corrections. The decision was per curiam, with three judges concurring, and no published opinion or substantive reasoning is provided in the order. The denial leaves in place the lower court or administrative action Evans challenged; the court noted the decision is not final until any timely motion under the appellate rules is resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal, in its original jurisdiction, denied on the merits Charles Dawson’s amended petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The petition was filed August 13, 2025, and the court issued its per curiam decision on April 16, 2026. The court reviewed the claims presented and concluded they did not establish ineffective assistance sufficient to warrant relief, so the petition was denied without remand or other relief.

The Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth considered Elizabeth Case’s original petition for a writ of mandamus and an emergency motion seeking relief from the 393rd District Court of Denton County (trial court no. 25-3863-393). The appellate court reviewed the request and denied both the petition and the emergency motion in a per curiam memorandum opinion delivered April 15, 2026. The court provided no extended written reasoning in the memorandum opinion beyond the denial.

The Fourth Court of Appeals denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Omar Elizondo, Ovidio Elizondo, and Dr. Anthony Cynthia Elizondo Aradillas. The petition and related motions (an emergency motion for temporary relief and a motion for expedited consideration) were filed March 24, 2026. After review, the court concluded the relators did not show entitlement to the extraordinary relief requested and therefore denied the mandamus petition; the emergency and expedited motions were denied as moot.

The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio denied James McCoy's petition for a writ of mandamus filed April 6, 2026, seeking to compel action in an underlying Bexar County district-court case. The court reviewed McCoy's petition and motions and concluded he did not meet the legal standard for mandamus relief under Texas appellate rules. As a result, the petition is denied and McCoy's ancillary motions (to proceed in forma pauperis and to accept a single copy of pleadings) were denied as moot.

The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by AGON4, LLC and Texas Premium Beverage Corp. The relators sought to compel action in an underlying probate-court case but failed to show entitlement to extraordinary relief under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because the court found the petition insufficient, it denied the writ and dismissed as moot the relators' separate motion for temporary relief (a stay of the underlying proceedings). No further reasoning beyond the procedural insufficiency is provided.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an Application for Discretionary Appeal filed by Catherine Corkren in case A26D0426 concerning LC No. 19CV0611. After review, the court issued a short administrative order denying the application. The document contains no substantive opinion explaining the court's reasoning beyond the single-word disposition denying the request for discretionary review.

The Georgia Court of Appeals issued a short order denying the appellant's motion made under Court of Appeals Rule 40(b) in case A26E0180, Fontes v. Bloom. The order contains no extended explanation or factual findings — it simply states the motion is denied and is certified as an official extract of the court minutes. There is no discussion of the grounds for denial or any further relief granted.

The Georgia Court of Appeals denied Andrea Plummer’s emergency motion seeking a stay of enforcement while her application for discretionary appeal is considered. The court issued a short order on April 15, 2026, declining to pause enforcement of the underlying judgment or order pending further appellate review. No extended reasoning or citation of law appears in the order; it is a procedural disposition denying temporary relief requested by the movant.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals denied Alan Harris Jr.’s App.R. 26(B) application to reopen his 2025 direct appeal. Harris argued appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising challenges to his sentence and plea, and he filed a late supplemental claim that his plea was involuntary because of alleged deficiencies outside the record. The court found the supplement untimely, held that the plea waived many challenges (including failure to file a suppression motion), and determined the plea colloquy and sentencing record did not show reversible error. The application to reopen was denied for lack of merit and timeliness.

The Florida Supreme Court denied Chadwick Willacy’s requests for public records and related relief after the Governor signed his death warrant. Willacy had sought records from FDOC and other state agencies about Florida’s lethal-injection protocol and interagency communications; the circuit court denied those motions and refused rehearing or in camera review. The Supreme Court treated his appeal as a Rule 9.142(c) petition, found Willacy failed to show the records were tied to a colorable postconviction claim (and were therefore an impermissible fishing expedition), and denied his petition and his habeas petition, dismissed his appeal of an extension request, and denied oral argument.

The Texas Court of Appeals (Third District) denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Jessica Marklund Johansson. The court issued a short memorandum opinion stating only the denial and citing the appellate rule permitting such disposition. No substantive analysis or factual background appears in the opinion; the denial resolves the original mandamus proceeding brought from Travis County without granting the extraordinary relief sought.

The Court of Appeals denied a petition for a writ of mandamus from Anjeneya Vijay Cheruvu, who sought to overturn a March 19, 2026 trial-court order holding him in contempt for possession or access in a Fort Bend County child-protection case. Cheruvu argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the contempt order. The appellate court concluded he did not meet the heavy burden required for mandamus relief, so it refused to direct the trial court to vacate the contempt order and dismissed any pending motions as moot.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an Application for Discretionary Appeal filed by Tyrone Pinkston, Sr. in case number A26D0449 arising from LC number 25DR02094 and denied the application on April 14, 2026. The court issued a brief administrative order without opinion, simply stating that the request for discretionary review is denied. No substantive reasoning or discussion of the underlying family-law dispute is provided in the order.

The Georgia Court of Appeals denied FPL Foods, LLC's application for discretionary appeal in the case FPL Foods, LLC et al v. Terrie Martinez-Tello. The order is brief: the court considered the application and denied it, which means the intermediate court's decision stands and the Court of Appeals will not review the matter on the discretionary docket. No substantive reasoning or opinion explaining the denial is provided in the document.

The court denied Keimarkus Woodard’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking a new parole-revocation hearing, an acquittal of alleged parole violations, and removal from post-release control. The Tenth District adopted the magistrate’s findings that the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (OAPA) complied with due process and that the hearing officer’s findings that Woodard violated conditions of supervision were supported by substantial evidence (including agent testimony and a seized packet testing positive for fentanyl). The court concluded Woodard failed to show OAPA had a clear legal duty to find him not guilty or that OAPA abused its discretion.

The Georgia Court of Appeals issued an order on April 13, 2026, denying Maria Theresa Pagano's emergency motion for a stay pending appeal in her case against Citizens Bank, N.A. The order is brief and procedural: the court considered the emergency motion and declined to grant a stay. No accompanying opinion explaining the court's reasoning or factual findings was provided in the document.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal filed by Stephen Arthur Vance from a domestic-relations case (LC No. 24V0055). After review, the court denied the application for discretionary appeal on April 13, 2026. The order is a short procedural ruling and does not address the merits of the underlying dispute; it simply declines to grant permission for the case to proceed to the Court of Appeals for full appellate review.

The court denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Anderson & Associates, PLLC seeking to overturn a trial court order of December 5, 2025 that redistributed an attorney fee award. The court explained mandamus requires showing both that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal, or that the order is void. The court concluded the relator has an adequate remedy by appeal, withdrew its prior order requesting responses from the real parties in interest, and denied the petition and emergency relief.

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 Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal by Xiaodong Guan from a civil action (LC No. 25CV000342) and denied the application on April 10, 2026. The order is brief and purely procedural: the court exercised its discretion and declined to grant review, so no merits decision on the underlying dispute between the named parties was made. The denial leaves the lower court's judgment or order intact and concludes this court's involvement unless the applicant pursues another available remedy.

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.

Justice Young filed a short opinion respecting the Court’s denial of rehearing in a petition for review concerning the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA). He explains that the Court has rarely authoritatively construed TUFTA and that many lower and federal courts have had to make independent interpretations. Justice Young concluded this particular case is a poor vehicle to resolve the broader statutory question—whether terminating a contract right to future payments can be a fraudulent transfer—because the record is highly fact-specific. For those reasons the Court denied rehearing and declined to take the case for further guidance on TUFTA.