Court Filings
1,984 filings indexedRecent court opinions cross-linked with public notices by case number, summarized and classified by AI.
Joseph Bebout West, Jr. v. the State of Texas
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, affirmed appellant Joseph Bebout West Jr.'s conviction for family-violence assault and one-year sentence. West challenged the denial of his motion for new trial, claiming a juror (the Longview mayor) created bias, and argued the jury charge omitted a consent instruction. The court found West forfeited the juror complaint because defense counsel failed to ask voir dire questions that would have revealed the mayoralty and that no evidence supported a consent instruction. Because the record supports the trial court's rulings, the conviction was affirmed.
Criminal AppealAffirmedTexas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)06-25-00139-CRIn Re John Henry Garber v. the State of Texas
The Court of Appeals of the Sixth Appellate District (Texarkana) denied John Henry Garber’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order forcing the Delta County court to rule on multiple pro se pretrial motions in three misdemeanor cases. The court found the record Garber supplied inadequate to show he had a clear, ministerial right to the relief because the registers show he failed to appear at a December 16, 2024 hearing and a warrant issued; there is no record he was re-arrested or returned to custody. The court emphasized mandamus requires a complete record and that a relator must show a clear right to relief, which Garber did not do.
Criminal AppealDeniedTexas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)06-26-00051-CRIn Re Jeffery Don Brock v. the State of Texas
The Court of Appeals (Sixth District) denied Jeffrey Don Brock's petition for a writ of mandamus asking the county court judge to rule on his motion to compel an executor's accounting. Brock had demanded an accounting by March 16, 2026, but filed for mandamus on March 10, before that deadline expired. The executor filed a verified accounting on March 13 (with clerk acceptance disputed by Brock). The court held Brock was not entitled to extraordinary relief because he sought mandamus before the accounting deadline and did not show the trial court refused to rule on his later complaints about the accounting.
CivilDeniedTexas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)06-26-00029-CVYoung v. Allen-Johnson, the Estate of Larry Darnell Allen Sr.
The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal brought by Yonbloksis Young against Ontarya Allen-Johnson, personal representative of an estate. The court issued a short per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. No opinion explaining the reasons was published in the decision; the judgment of the circuit court for Escambia County is left intact. The decision is final subject to any timely, authorized rehearing motions under Florida appellate rules.
CivilAffirmedDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida1D2024-2902Ramirez v. Dixon
The First District Court of Appeal reviewed Gene Ramirez's appeal from a Leon County circuit court judgment involving the Florida Department of Corrections. The appellate court issued a short per curiam decision on April 27, 2026, affirming the lower court's ruling. No published opinion or extended explanation of reasoning is provided in the document; the judgment simply states AFFIRMED and notes concurrence by the three judges. Procedural rules for timely post-decision motions are referenced but no further substance is given.
Habeas CorpusAffirmedDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida1D2024-0484Orama's Delivery Transport Corp v. Department of Transportation
The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Orama’s Delivery Transport Corp from an order of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board involving the Florida Department of Transportation. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 27, 2026, affirming the board's order. No extended opinion or reasoning appears in the published entry; the court simply affirmed the lower body's decision and noted concurrence by three judges. The decision is not final until any timely motions under Florida appellate rules are resolved.
AdministrativeAffirmedDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida1D2025-0339McCray v. State of Florida
The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Cecil McCray from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Alachua County and, in a per curiam opinion dated April 27, 2026, affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion is brief: the court issued a unanimous affirmance without published opinion or extended reasoning, and the three-judge panel concurred. The decision notes that it is not final until any timely post-decision motion under Florida appellate rules is resolved.
Criminal AppealAffirmedDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida1D2025-0492Lee v. State of Florida
The First District Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the trial court's decision in the criminal case of Byron Lee v. State of Florida. The opinion is per curiam and short: the appellate court reviewed the circuit court's ruling and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the judgment. The decision was issued April 27, 2026, and the panel noted concurrence by the chief and two other judges. The opinion is not final until the time for certain post-opinion motions expires under Florida appellate rules.
Criminal AppealAffirmedDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida1D2024-2410Lawn v. Graceville Correctional Facility
The First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Charles J. Lawn, Jr. from a decision of the Circuit Court for Jackson County involving Graceville Correctional Facility. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 27, 2026, and affirmed the lower court's judgment. No substantive opinion or reasoning beyond the one-word disposition was provided in the published entry; the decision was unanimous and counsel for the appellee and the pro se appellant are noted.
OtherAffirmedDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida1D2024-0544Hanna Oaks Operating LLC, Hanna Oaks Center for Independent and Assisted Living v. Agency for Healthcare Administration
The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an administrative appeal by Hanna Oaks Operating LLC from a decision of the Agency for Health Care Administration. The court issued a short per curiam opinion affirming the agency's decision. No opinion text explaining the reasoning was published in this disposition; the court simply affirmed the agency's action and noted concurrence by three judges. The decision was entered April 27, 2026, and is subject to any timely authorized motion under Florida appellate rules.
AdministrativeAffirmedDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida1D2025-0448Enoch v. State of Florida
The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Naymontie N. Enoch from a decision of the Circuit Court for Alachua County. The appellate court, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief and provides no extended reasoning in the published entry; the court noted concurrence by all judges and reminded parties that the decision is not final until the time for authorized post-decision motions has passed.
Criminal AppealAffirmedDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida1D2025-05385539 NPR Operating LLC D/B/A New Port Richey Center for Assisted Living & Memory Care v. State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration
The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an administrative appeal by 5539 NPR Operating LLC (doing business as New Port Richey Center for Assisted Living & Memory Care) from a decision of the Agency for Health Care Administration. The court issued a short per curiam opinion on April 27, 2026, and affirmed the agency's decision. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning appears in the file beyond the single-word disposition and concurrence by the three judges.
AdministrativeAffirmedDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida1D2025-0445200 Venice Operating LLC, Venice Center for Independent and Assisted Living v. Agency for Healthcare Administration
The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the Agency for Health Care Administration's decision in a dispute with 200 Venice Operating LLC, which operates the Venice Center for Independent and Assisted Living. The appeal challenged an administrative action by the Agency; the appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 27, 2026, concluding the Agency's action should stand. The opinion provided no extended discussion and the three-judge panel concurred, leaving the Agency's ruling intact and the appellant's challenge unsuccessful.
AdministrativeAffirmedDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida1D2025-0449Young v. State of Florida
The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed Da’vhon Young’s appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. The per curiam opinion consists only of the single-word disposition “DISMISSED” with concurrence from three judges. No substantive reasoning or discussion of issues appears in the published entry, and the opinion notes that it is not final until any timely authorized motion under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure is resolved.
Criminal AppealDismissedDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida1D2025-3354Torrey D. Walker v. Circuit Judge Sjostrom of the Second Judicial Circuit Court
The First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Torrey D. Walker challenging actions by a Leon County circuit judge. The court issued a short per curiam decision dated April 27, 2026, and affirmed the lower court's ruling. No extended opinion or reasoning appears in the record beyond the single-word disposition and concurrence by three judges. The decision notes the appellate process remains open for any timely, authorized post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.
OtherAffirmedDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida1D2025-1380Robb v. State of Florida
The Florida First District Court of Appeal considered Blake Robb's appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. After review, the court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 27, 2026, simply stating the judgment is affirmed. No additional opinion or reasoning was provided in the published entry; the three-judge panel concurred and directed that the decision is not final until any timely authorized motion is resolved under Florida appellate rules.
Criminal AppealAffirmedDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida1D2025-0542Peacock v. State of Florida
The First District Court of Appeal dismissed Johnnie Peacock's appeal from a decision of the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The opinion is a brief per curiam entry, announces dismissal, and notes that the panel judges concurred. The order informs the parties that the decision is not final until any timely authorized motion under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 is resolved. No written opinion explaining the reasons for dismissal is included in the document.
Criminal AppealDismissedDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida1D2025-3098Mason v. Mason
The Florida First District Court of Appeal denied Kevin Gregory Mason's petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a lower-court matter involving Edith Knapp Mason. The court, acting in its original jurisdiction, issued a per curiam order on April 27, 2026, simply stating 'DENIED' without published opinion or extended reasoning. All three judges concurred. The order notes the decision is not final until any timely authorized rehearing motion is resolved.
OtherDeniedDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida1D2025-3405Foziah Alawi v. UPS and Liberty Mutual Insurance
The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Foziah Alawi from a decision of the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims concerning a workplace injury claim dated June 7, 2023. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower tribunal’s ruling. No extended opinion or new legal analysis is provided in the published entry; the court simply affirmed the underlying decision and noted concurrence by the three-judge panel.
CivilAffirmedDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida1D2025-1272Coggins v. State of Florida
The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed appellant Marshay Coggins's appeal as untimely. The appeal arose from a decision of the Circuit Court for Jefferson County and was reviewed by a three-judge panel. The court issued a short per curiam order dismissing the appeal for failure to file within the required time, with all three judges concurring and noting the decision is not final until any timely, authorized motion under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure is resolved.
Criminal AppealDismissedDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida1D2025-3418P. ex rel. Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management Dist.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of the district’s anti‑SLAPP motion. The Yolo‑Solano Air Quality Management District sued Diamond D General Engineering and Spencer Defty for alleged permitting and air‑quality violations. Diamond and Defty cross‑complained seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the district relied on a secret internal policy (Policy 24) not adopted through required rulemaking. The appellate court held the cross‑complaint challenged the validity of Policy 24 rather than merely the district’s investigative or enforcement acts, so the claims did not arise from protected petitioning or speech and the anti‑SLAPP motion failed.
CivilAffirmedCalifornia Court of AppealC102574In re Z.G.
The California Supreme Court reversed the juvenile court’s orders terminating a mother’s parental rights to her two young children and remanded for further proceedings. The juvenile court had ended reunification services and set permanency hearings after finding the children likely to be adopted, but the high court held a likelihood-of-adoption finding alone is not enough to terminate parental rights — the court must also make one of the statutory additional findings or find no applicable exception. The Court also held the mother received ineffective assistance of counsel because her attorney failed to assert her statutory right to reunification services for one child and failed to pursue writ review, requiring vacation of those orders and a new hearing.
FamilyReversedCalifornia Supreme CourtS289430Boren Descendants and Royalty Owners v. Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd.; Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd.; And Fasken Royalty Investments, Ltd.
The Texas Supreme Court granted review in two consolidated petitions challenging a court of appeals judgment about ownership of an oil-and-gas royalty created by a 1933 deed. The high court held the court of appeals erred to conclude it lacked jurisdiction to consider the presumed-grant doctrine because that issue was fairly included in the interlocutory appeal. The Court vacated the court of appeals’ merits judgment, reversed its jurisdictional ruling, and remanded the case for the court of appeals to consider both deed text (double-fraction) and the presumed-grant doctrine without expressing a view on the ultimate ownership outcome.
CivilRemandedTexas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)11-22-00365-CVSERES CAPITAL GA, LLC v. BETTY JEAN COOK
The Georgia Court of Appeals granted the appellant's motion to withdraw their appeal in Seres Capital GA, LLC v. Betty Jean Cook. By granting the motion the appellate court released jurisdiction back to the trial court, meaning the appeal is no longer active before the Court of Appeals and the case returns to the lower court for further proceedings. The order is a ministerial grant of withdrawal rather than a decision on the merits of the underlying dispute.
CivilGrantedCourt of Appeals of GeorgiaA26I0181In the Interest of A. A., a Child (Mother)
The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the juvenile court’s order awarding permanent guardianship of infant A.A. to his paternal grandmother. The Department of Family and Children Services had petitioned for guardianship after dependency proceedings placed the children with the grandparents. The appellate court reviewed the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court, found sufficient evidence supporting that reunification efforts would be detrimental and that guardianship served the child’s best interests, and rejected the mother’s procedural and legal challenges as either unpreserved, moot, or without merit.
FamilyAffirmedCourt of Appeals of GeorgiaA26A0324Cox Store Management, Inc. v. City of Tucker
The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court and City of Tucker in denying Cox Store Management’s application for a license to operate coin-operated amusement machines (COAMs) at its Idlewood convenience store. The City’s 2022 COAM ordinance bars COAMs within the distance limits that apply to alcohol sales; the store is 80.2 yards from a nearby church. The court held that the enabling statute allows municipalities to impose distance restrictions for COAMs no more restrictive than those for alcohol sales, and that the ordinance’s application to Cox was therefore lawful regardless of the types of alcoholic beverages Cox sells.
CivilAffirmedCourt of Appeals of GeorgiaA26A0652Chuka Anene v. Eve Nwoekabia
The Court of Appeals dismissed Chuka Anene’s discretionary application for review of a February 3, 2026 divorce judgment because it was filed outside the 30-day statutory deadline. Anene filed the application on March 27, 2026 — 52 days after entry of the decree — and the court determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider untimely applications under OCGA § 5-6-35(d). The court therefore dismissed the application as untimely, noting a prior direct appeal by Anene had already been dismissed as improper in divorce cases.
FamilyDismissedCourt of Appeals of GeorgiaA26D0438Joseph McClellan Raines v. State
The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal in the criminal case of Joseph McClellan Raines (LC No. 2017CR0650) and denied the application on April 24, 2026. The order is brief and procedural: the court simply records that the application for discretionary review is denied, without published reasoning or discussion of the merits. The document is a certified court minute entry signed by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Criminal AppealDeniedCourt of Appeals of GeorgiaA26D0458Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones
The Court of Appeals reversed a municipal court order that had set aside a default judgment entered for Shelter Mutual Insurance Company against Dajuan Henry Jones. SMIC had obtained default judgment after certified-mail service to an address; Jones later moved to vacate the judgment claiming improper service, mistaken identity, and that he only learned of the case months later. The appeals court found Jones presented insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of proper service but was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the service issue; it also held Jones’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion was untimely and remanded for denial of relief under that rule and for a hearing only on service.
CivilReversedOhio Court of AppealsC-250521Drake v. UC Health, L.L.C.
The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for UC Health, LLC in Danielle Drake’s wrongful-termination suit. Drake, an at-will social worker, was fired after she accessed a patient’s protected health information (PHI) without a legitimate business reason while attempting to report a coworker’s suspected HIPAA violation. The court held that UC had an overriding legitimate business justification—enforcement of its strict policy forbidding unauthorized PHI access—and Drake failed to show that termination was pretextual.
CivilAffirmedOhio Court of AppealsC-250581