Court Filings

The Court of Appeal affirmed a trial-court order exonerating a $180,000 bail bond conditioned on payment of extradition costs and later awarding $7,492.40 in extradition expenses to the district attorney. North River (the surety) argued the bond could not be exonerated because the defendant was not physically present when the court acted and that the court lost jurisdiction to order extradition costs. The court held the defendant’s appearance by counsel under Penal Code section 977 satisfied the requirement in section 1305(c)(1) to exonerate the bond, and the court properly ordered extradition costs under section 1306(b).

The Court of Appeal reversed a trial-court grant of summary judgment in a malicious-prosecution suit brought by attorney Brian Detrick against his former client, Keiko Shimada. Shimada had voluntarily dismissed a prior malpractice case and moved for summary judgment, claiming the dismissal was motivated by the statute of limitations (a procedural ground that would bar malicious prosecution). The trial court relied on Shimada’s English-language declaration, but the appellate court held that because Shimada cannot read or speak English the declaration was incompetent absent evidence identifying and qualifying the interpreter/translator and an attestation that the translation accurately reflected Shimada’s words. The judgment for Shimada was reversed and the summary-judgment motion must be denied.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Southern California Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG) in a negligence suit after a bicyclist was struck by SCPMG employee Dr. Brittany Doremus while she was driving to work. The court held SCPMG met its initial burden by submitting uncontradicted deposition evidence that Doremus was on an ordinary morning commute and not performing work when the collision occurred, shifting the burden to the plaintiff, who failed to produce admissible evidence creating a triable issue. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that occasional work-from-home status converted home into a second worksite on the day of the accident.

The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Hensel Phelps and remanded for further proceedings. AVL, a supplier/installer of vehicle emissions testing equipment, sought a declaratory judgment that its claims for payment were not barred by the Contractors State Licensing Law because its equipment did not “become a fixed part of the structure” under Business and Professions Code section 7045. The appellate court held the factual question whether the goods became part of the structure is for a trier of fact; competing expert declarations and voluminous record evidence created a triable issue, so summary judgment was improper.

The Court of Appeals dismissed two consolidated direct appeals by Google, LLC and its employee Laura Revenko seeking review of a trial court order compelling them to comply with deposition notices and subpoenas in a divorce case. The court held it lacked jurisdiction because discovery orders in domestic relations cases listed in OCGA § 5-6-35 must be pursued by discretionary application, even if the order otherwise meets the collateral order criteria for immediacy. Because Google and Revenko did not file the required application for appeal, the appeals were dismissed.

The Court of Appeals dismissed an application for interlocutory appeal by guardians of a minor bitten by a dog because the trial court’s certificate of immediate review was untimely. After the trial court granted summary judgment for the homeowner (Jerry) on March 10, 2026, the court issued the required certificate only on April 2, 2026 — 23 days later. Because Georgia law requires the certificate be issued within ten days of the order and that requirement is jurisdictional, the appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application. The plaintiffs must wait for a final judgment to pursue appeal rights.

The Georgia Court of Appeals reviewed an Application for Discretionary Appeal filed by Keithan B. Patmon from the State. After consideration, the court issued an order dated April 27, 2026, denying the application. The document is a brief administrative entry recording the court's disposition without additional written opinion or reasoning.

The Court of Appeals transferred an interlocutory application from Elizabeth Noell challenging the as-applied constitutionality and interpretation of Georgia's Equitable Caregiver Statute, OCGA § 19-7-3.1, to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Noell argued the statute must require that the biological parent (her) — not merely the other parent — foster or support a third party’s parental relationship with her children. The trial court rejected that argument, finding the statute requires only that “a parent” foster the relationship. Because the case involves an unsettled constitutional question and the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters, the Court of Appeals transferred the matter for disposition.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Vernard K. Carter, Jr.'s appeal from a superior court writ of possession because the appeal was subject to discretionary-appeal procedures. The case began as a dispossessory action in magistrate court, was reviewed de novo by the superior court, and then appealed directly to this Court. The Court held it lacked jurisdiction because Carter did not follow the statutory discretionary-appeal process required for appeals from superior-court de novo reviews of magistrate-court rulings (OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(1) and controlling precedent). The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Susanne E. Krupa’s direct appeal from a final divorce decree because appeals in divorce and other domestic relations cases must be pursued by discretionary application under OCGA § 5-6-35. Krupa filed a notice of appeal rather than the required discretionary application, and the court held that compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional. Because Krupa did not follow that procedure, the court granted Timothy E. McLane’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the appeal.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Jonathan D. Reed’s appeal challenging parts of his 2007 convictions and sentence. Reed had previously litigated the same challenge to his hijacking sentence and earlier appeals were dismissed or resolved, so the court found it lacked jurisdiction to relitigate those issues. The court also held that claims attacking the validity of a conviction or asserting merger of sentences are not properly raised in a motion to vacate as void, and Reed’s consecutive-sentence challenge did not present a colorable voidness claim because each sentence was within statutory limits.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Gustavo Cisneros’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of his 2026 motion to vacate a void sentence. Cisneros argued several convictions should have merged (attempt with armed robbery, sexual battery with aggravated battery, and burglary with armed robbery). The court held that merger challenges attack convictions, not sentences, and therefore are not properly raised in a motion to vacate a void sentence. Because the motion did not present a colorable void-sentence claim, the Court of Appeals concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Austin Eugene Spargo's direct appeal from a trial court order revoking his probation because such appeals must be pursued by applying for a discretionary appeal under state law. The court explained that compliance with the discretionary-appeal procedure is jurisdictional, cited statute and precedent, and concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the direct appeal, so the appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Mason Municipal Court's dismissal of Mirkomil Noziljon's small-claims suit against dentist Doktor Hasan seeking a $5,000 refund. After a bench trial before a magistrate, the court found credible testimony and a billing/credit receipt showing a $5,000 refund had been processed to a credit card provided at the office. The magistrate acknowledged a name discrepancy on the receipt but concluded Noziljon failed to meet his burden. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing post-trial evidence and that the judgment was not against the weight of the evidence.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision denying Gregory Myers a court-ordered certificate of title for a 1970 Chevrolet Nova. Myers had sought title after buying property at a sheriff's sale where the car had been stored, but the trial court found he did not acquire the vehicle by operation of law under R.C. 4505.10. The court concluded title remained with the decedent, Elvin Potter, and that disputes over ownership of the decedent's personal property are for the probate court. The appellate court affirmed dismissal of Myers' petition with prejudice.

The Warren County Juvenile Court granted Warren County Children Services (WCCS) permanent custody of nine-year-old S.F., rather than returning her to the legal custody of her 74-year-old paternal grandmother. WCCS sought permanent custody after S.F. wandered away from grandmother’s home and exhibited severe behavioral and mental-health problems requiring specialized treatment. The juvenile court found grandmother medically frail, lacking stamina and knowledge to meet S.F.'s needs, and unable to provide the legally secure, specialized care S.F. requires. The appellate court affirmed, concluding the finding was supported by the weight of the evidence and was in S.F.'s best interest.

The Ohio Court of Appeals (Twelfth District) affirmed the probate court's ruling that the child's biological mother must give consent before the child may be adopted by the maternal grandmother. The probate court had found the mother had justifiable cause for failing to provide financial support during the one-year look-back period prior to the adoption petition, and the appellate court held that finding was supported by competent, credible evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court emphasized that adoption terminates parental rights and exceptions to consent must be strictly construed, and it concluded the mother reasonably believed her financial help was unnecessary because the petitioners provided fully for the child and never sought parental support.

The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Ralph J. Gipple’s motions to revise his sentencing entries to increase jail-time credit. Gipple argued that all days he spent confined across three separate cases should be applied to the concurrent prison terms, relying on State v. Fugate. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion because Fugate applies only where pretrial confinement was attributable to multiple offenses simultaneously; here, Gipple’s confinement periods were not entirely overlapping and the trial court properly applied jail-time credit only to the offenses for which he was confined. The convictions and concurrent sentences remain affirmed.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants in a premises-liability suit. Appellant Irene Wunderle sued after falling stepping into a boutique and suffering serious eye injuries, claiming the threshold had an indistinct step down that was not open and obvious. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact: the step was small but visible, the store was well-lit, nothing obstructed her view, and no unusual attendant circumstances existed to distract her. Because the condition was open and obvious, the owners owed no duty to warn.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Dennis Tilton's filing titled a "Complaint and Intent to File Petition for Post-Conviction Relief". Tilton had been convicted in Willoughby Municipal Court and later filed his postconviction claim in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. The appeals court held the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction because Ohio law requires R.C. 2953.21 petitions be filed in the sentencing court (the municipal court). Citing Ohio precedent, the court concluded municipal-court misdemeanants must seek relief through other procedures in the sentencing court, so dismissal was proper.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Brian K. Woofter’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Woofter, criminally charged in municipal court for purchasing and selling alcohol to minors, had the charge dismissed and then sought return of six cases of alcohol seized by the sheriff. The trial court denied his motion but said it could be reconsidered if Woofter produced proof of purchase. The appellate court held that the denial was not a final, appealable order because it anticipated further action and did not affect a substantial right or foreclose effective relief on the motion.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ashtabula County Common Pleas Court’s sentence of two years of community control for Maurice D. Turner following his guilty pleas to two fifth‑degree felonies (breaking and entering and aggravated possession of drugs). The parties jointly recommended community control with treatment, and the trial court ordered Turner to successfully complete the NEOCAP residential program as a condition. Because the sentence was jointly recommended, authorized by law, and neither Turner nor counsel objected at plea or sentencing, the appellate court held R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) bars review and affirmed.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the Portage County Common Pleas court's denial of Austin Mehring’s successive petition for post-conviction relief without a hearing. Mehring had pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and misdemeanor assault in 2022, did not appeal, and later filed untimely post-conviction petitions claiming newly discovered exculpatory cellphone video and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held it lacked jurisdiction to consider the successive petition because Mehring failed to meet the statutory exceptions in R.C. 2953.23(A), and his claims were barred by res judicata, so no evidentiary hearing was required.

The Ohio Court of Appeals reviewed Ashley K.M. Kendrick’s challenge to her aggregate 23-month prison sentence following multiple community-control violations and a new felony conviction. The court held that the trial court had provided adequate notice of the possible prison-range at the original community-control sentencing hearings, did not err by imposing reserved/suspended prison terms while imposing community control, and permissibly ordered one new felony sentence to run consecutively to earlier concurrent reserved terms. The appellate court corrected a clerical discrepancy in the judgment entry and modified the record to reflect an aggregate 23-month term, then affirmed as modified.

The Court of Appeals reversed a municipal court conviction for operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI) because officers lacked reasonable articulable suspicion to extend a traffic stop and administer field sobriety tests. Ingram was pulled over for an unlit rear license plate, admitted having a drink earlier, and officers testified to smelling alcohol from the vehicle, but there was no erratic driving, no notable eye or speech impairment, and body-cam statements conflicted about odor and signs of impairment. The appellate court held the totality of circumstances did not justify prolonging the stop, vacated the conviction, and remanded for further proceedings.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Lake County Common Pleas Court’s denial of Julio C. Diaz’s postjudgment motion seeking a hearing under R.C. 2947.23(B) to perform community service in lieu of paying $2,260 in court costs. Diaz argued the court should have held a hearing because he had not paid the costs. The appeals court found the record did not show he failed to pay or defaulted under an approved payment schedule, and the clerk’s letter about potential commissary garnishment did not establish a basis for a hearing. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion without a hearing.

The court dismissed Hasan Howard’s petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a Lake County judge’s failure to quash a warrant or promptly hold a community-control violation hearing while Howard remains in federal custody. The judge granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), concluding Howard cannot show a clear legal right to relief because Ohio law tolls community control while an offender is confined, and the interstate detainer statute does not require a prompt hearing for probation or community-control violations. The court also relied on due-process precedent holding no right to an immediate hearing before custody on the detainer has occurred.

The court dismissed H&S Investment Properties, LLC’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to force the Ashtabula County Auditor to change the owner name on the county tax list to match an affidavit recorded under R.C. 5301.252. The court held that the recorder’s affidavit statute does not itself create a right to change tax-roll entries and that the auditor’s duty under R.C. 319.28 is to compile the tax list, not to alter it based on a recorded affidavit. Because Relator cannot show a clear legal right or corresponding clear legal duty by the auditor, mandamus relief was unavailable and the petition was dismissed; the summary-judgment motion was denied as moot.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trumbull County Common Pleas judgment ordering the condominium association and unit-owner defendants to specifically perform a 2014 settlement agreement requiring stabilization and restorative work on a shared wall. The trial court had granted plaintiff Owen summary judgment on enforceability after finding no competent evidence that the agreement was mutually rescinded or impossible to perform. The court limited Owen’s liability to her original pro rata share of estimated 2014 costs and denied attorney fees. The appeals court found no error in granting specific performance.

The court affirmed the municipal small-claims judgment for defendant Jenna Nelson after a bench trial. Plaintiff Stephanie Milton sued Nelson for breach of contract and civil damages under Ohio cruelty statutes, alleging her adopted mustang lost significant weight and training while boarded with Nelson. The trial court found insufficient evidence that Nelson failed to provide proper nourishment or training, and the appellate court held that the trial court did not lose its way in weighing testimony and evidence. The court also rejected Milton’s claim that the case should have been moved off the small-claims docket, noting Milton chose that forum and sought only $6,000.