Court Filings

The Court of Appeals (Tenth Appellate District of Texas) received Thomas Blanchard's March 2, 2026 filing titled a petition for writ of habeas corpus but construed it as a petition for a writ of mandamus because of the relief sought. The court considered the filing and denied the petition. The opinion is a short memorandum with the Chief Justice delivering the opinion and the denial issued on April 9, 2026.

The court construed Ignacio Lara Jr.'s pro se filing as a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court's order for a competency examination. The court explained mandamus standards and the requirements for such petitions under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, including the need to show a ministerial duty and an inadequate legal remedy and to supply an adequate record. Because Lara failed to meet procedural and record requirements and did not show entitlement to relief, the court denied the petition for writ of mandamus without issuing an opinion for publication.

The First Court of Appeals denied a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Ryen Michelle Staggers seeking to vacate and stay enforcement of a March 27, 2026 temporary order from a Harris County family-court case. The appellate court concluded Staggers failed to provide the mandatory mandamus record or appendix that includes a certified copy of the challenged trial court order, as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because the court could not review the order, it found she had not shown entitlement to mandamus relief and therefore denied the petition and dismissed pending motions as moot.

The First District of Texas denied a pro se petitioner Ryen Michelle Staggers' request for a writ of mandamus and emergency stay. Staggers asked this Court to stay and vacate a March 27, 2026 trial-court order in an underlying child‑protection case, alleging extrinsic fraud and due-process violations. The appellate court declined relief because the mandamus record and appendix did not include the required certified copy of the March 27, 2026 order, preventing review of her claims. The court therefore denied the petition and dismissed any pending motions as moot.

The First District of Texas denied a mandamus petition filed by May Kue and Youssef Ezzat challenging a county court’s final judgment in an eviction case. The relators asked the court to issue an emergency stay blocking a writ of possession, further proceedings in the underlying eviction, and release of registry funds. The Court of Appeals denied the petition and all related emergency motions and stay requests without granting the requested relief.

The Texas Court of Appeals (First District) denied Kevin Henry's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a trial court order that granted an opponent's motion to compel discovery in a pending civil case (Derrick Dees v. Kevin Henry et al.). The appellate court concluded mandamus relief was not warranted and dismissed any outstanding motions as moot. The opinion is a short per curiam memorandum without extended factual or legal discussion, and it leaves the trial court's order intact.

The First Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency stay filed by Heather J. Taylor and Mad Hat Maven, LLC. Relators had challenged a district court's March 3, 2026 order allowing substituted service of subpoenas and a March 31, 2026 enforcement order compelling their depositions and production of documents. The appellate court declined to disturb the trial court’s orders and refused to stay the depositions scheduled for April 9, 2026, effectively leaving the trial court’s discovery and enforcement directives in place.

The Texas First Court of Appeals denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Anant Kumar Tripati challenging a trial court order that granted a motion to dismiss in an underlying suit against YESCARE Corp. and others. The appellate court concluded mandamus relief was not warranted and dismissed any pending motions as moot. The opinion is brief and issued per curiam, listing the underlying district-court cause and judge but providing no extended reasoning or factual detail.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals denied a petition asking the court to issue a writ of mandamus to control proceedings in a Travis County case. The court also lifted a previously entered stay of the underlying trial-court proceedings. The court issued a short memorandum opinion denying relief under the appellate rules and returning the case to the trial-court process, without further comment or substantive analysis in this brief disposition.

The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio denied DNOW L.P.'s petition for a writ of mandamus and denied as moot its emergency stay motion. DNOW filed the petition, record, and emergency motion on April 6, 2026, but the court found the filings did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3(k) and 52.7 and determined DNOW had not shown entitlement to mandamus relief under rule 52.8(a). The underlying state-court matters concern Mattea Mansell v. DNOW, L.P., pending in Zavala County district court.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal filed by Rikayat Lawal in case number A26D0407, seeking review of a trial court matter assigned LC number 25DD000869. The court issued a short order on April 9, 2026, denying the application for discretionary appeal. No further reasoning or analysis is provided in the document; it is a ministerial denial entry from the Clerk of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal filed by William Melton, II, in case A26D0404 (LC No. 23FM1024) against Jacqueline Boone and denied the application. The order, issued April 9, 2026, is a short procedural disposition that simply refuses permission to pursue an interlocutory or discretionary appeal to this court and does not address the merits of the underlying case.

The Georgia Court of Appeals issued an order on April 9, 2026 denying an emergency motion by Westchester Place Homeowners Association and related parties. The appellants had asked for a supersedeas (stay) of injunctive relief and for the appointment of a receiver while their appeal is pending. The court refused those emergency requests, leaving the lower-court injunctive relief and the absence of a receiver in place pending further proceedings.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered Maryam Bennett’s emergency motion asking the court to immediately stay enforcement of a lower-court order. After review, the court denied the emergency motion, so no stay was granted and the underlying order remains enforceable. The order is a short administrative disposition reflecting only the denial of the requested emergency relief and does not provide extended reasoning or discussion of the merits.

The Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, denied Shawn L. Sanders's petition seeking either a writ of mandamus or, alternatively, a writ of prohibition. Sanders filed the petition on March 23, 2026, asking the appellate court to intervene in underlying criminal case No. 2023-CR-3165 in Bexar County. After reviewing the petition and record, the court concluded Sanders did not establish entitlement to the extraordinary relief requested and therefore denied both the mandamus and prohibition petitions without publishing an opinion.

The Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, denied Joy Cherie Kilgore’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking relief related to an underlying case in Bexar County District Court. The court considered Kilgore’s petition and an incorporated emergency motion for temporary relief filed April 6, 2026, and concluded she was not entitled to mandamus relief under the Texas appellate rules. Because the requested extraordinary relief was denied, the court also denied the emergency motion as moot. No written opinion explaining detailed reasoning was issued—this is a brief disposition under the appellate rules.

The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Goliath Building Services, Inc. and Joshua N. Marsalis challenging proceedings in a Bexar County court. The relators had also sought emergency temporary relief; the court found they had not shown entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief and therefore denied the mandamus petition. Because the mandamus petition was denied, the court also denied the emergency temporary relief motions as moot. The decision is a short per curiam memorandum opinion.

The Fourth Court of Appeals (San Antonio) denied Camoray Wathen-Escobar’s original petitions for a writ of mandamus and a writ of habeas corpus and denied as moot her emergency motion for temporary relief. The court explained mandamus requires showing a clear abuse of discretion and lack of an adequate appellate remedy, and that the intermediate appellate court lacks jurisdiction over family-code habeas petitions regarding return of a child. After reviewing the petition and record, the court concluded the relator did not meet the standards for relief and therefore denied the petitions.

The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio considered Alton Crain Jr.'s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking extraordinary relief related to a pending county court case. After reviewing the petition and record, the court concluded Crain did not show entitlement to the requested relief under the appellate rules and denied the petition. The opinion is brief and delivers the disposition without extended analysis or citation to underlying facts or legal authorities.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal in a child-related case styled In the Interest of M. B. (Mother). After review, the court denied the application for discretionary appeal, meaning it declined to hear the matter on appeal. The order is ministerial and contains no additional reasoning or discussion of the underlying juvenile or parental rights proceedings.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals denied Troy Nguyen's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court's alleged failure to rule on his consolidated Rule 306a(4) and 306a(5) motion filed January 20, 2026. The appellate court explained that to obtain mandamus for failure to rule, a relator must show the trial court had a duty to rule, that a demand was made, and that the court failed to rule within a reasonable time. Because the record did not show an unreasonable delay, the court concluded extraordinary relief was not warranted and denied the petition.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for an interlocutory appeal in the case Arthur Sloman et al. v. Gwenetta Powers (LC No. ST22CV0118) and denied the application. The order is a brief ministerial ruling from the Court's Clerk dated April 7, 2026, and contains no further explanation of the court's reasoning or the underlying dispute. The denial means the moving party will not receive immediate appellate review of the trial court's interlocutory order and must proceed in the trial court or seek other appellate remedies allowed by law.

The Court of Appeals denied Clarence Cowart's emergency motion asking this Court to order the trial court clerk to immediately transmit the trial record or to certify the cause of delay. Cowart's appeal from a dispossessory order was not docketed because the transcript was not timely transmitted. The Court held that issues about delay and possible dismissal under OCGA § 5-6-48(c) must be decided first by the trial court after notice and hearing, so Cowart cannot bypass those proceedings by seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.

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 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 Washington Supreme Court answered a certified question from the Ninth Circuit about whether a consumer who buys and keeps a product at its advertised price but was induced to buy it by a false representation about the product’s former price has a cognizable injury under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The Court held that such a buyer does not allege an injury to “business or property” under the CPA when the purchased, fungible product conforms to its advertised qualities and the purchaser paid the advertised price. The Court explained that mere disappointed expectations or being tricked into buying an item that is not objectively less valuable do not establish CPA injury, though other theories (e.g., objectively inferior goods) could.

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 a mandamus petition by Jocelyn Rosnick (ACLU of Ohio) seeking contracts and related documents the Geauga County Sheriff’s Office allegedly executed with DHS, ICE, or the U.S. Marshals Service between June 1, 2024 and March 3, 2025. The sheriff’s office initially cited federal-law restrictions for denial but later submitted a records-clerk affidavit stating it did not execute any such contracts during that period. Because Rosnick failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that responsive records exist and were withheld, the court denied the writ and denied statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs. A motion to file late rebuttal evidence was also denied as untimely.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for an interlocutory appeal filed by Desmond Camp in two criminal cases (LC Nos. 25CR0733 and 26CR0023) and denied the application on April 1, 2026. The order is brief: the court reviewed the request for permission to take an appeal before final judgment and concluded that interlocutory review was not warranted, issuing a simple denial without published opinion or extended reasoning. The clerk certified the order as an extract from the court minutes.