Court Filings

The Washington Supreme Court decided whether RCW 9.94A.640 permits a person who remains incarcerated on a separate conviction to seek vacation of earlier convictions and whether applicants must present evidence of rehabilitation. The court held that the statute’s time bars require release from complete confinement on all convictions before the statutory crime-free period runs, so a person never released into the community is ineligible. The court also held, following State v. Hawkins, that courts must consider evidence of rehabilitation and that applicants should present such evidence for a court to exercise its discretion. The case is remanded consistent with that ruling.

The Washington Supreme Court answered a certified question from a federal district court about whether RCW 70.170.060(8)(a) — the charity care notice provision — applies to a debt collection agency collecting hospital debt. The court held yes: collection agencies collecting hospital debt must provide notice of charity care under the plain language and policy of the charity care act, and an assignee of hospital debt takes on notice obligations tied to that debt. The court further explained that failure to provide notice can support a non-per-se Consumer Protection Act claim based on violation of the act’s public-policy goals.

The Washington Supreme Court reviewed whether the six-year construction statute of repose (RCW 4.16.300-.310) bars estate claims by the executor of Lee Hetterly, who developed fatal mesothelioma decades after working at ARCO’s Cherry Point refinery. The court held that claims arising from Brand Insulations’ construction work installing asbestos-containing insulation during refinery construction are time-barred by the statute of repose, but claims premised on Brand’s role as a product seller or negligent supplier are not barred. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that division of claims.

The Washington Supreme Court answered certified questions from a federal case about whether a home equity line of credit (HELOC) is a negotiable instrument and whether an alleged beneficiary can be the “holder” of such a HELOC for purposes of initiating a nonjudicial trustee’s sale under the deed of trust act (DTA). The majority held that HELOCs of this revolving type are nonnegotiable and that the DTA’s requirement that the beneficiary be the “holder” refers to the holder of a negotiable instrument under the Uniform Commercial Code, so RRA could not truthfully declare it was the holder and thus could not proceed nonjudicially. The court noted judicial remedies remain available.

The Washington Supreme Court held that child welfare records in the custody of the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) are generally privileged under RCW 74.04.060(1)(a), but an exception in that statute permits disclosure when the records are needed in a judicial proceeding directly concerned with administration of the foster care program. The court also held RCW 13.50.100 does not bar disclosure because plaintiffs are entitled to records that “pertain” to them. The trial courts’ orders compelling production of redacted records under protective orders were affirmed; fee requests were denied.

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s dismissal of Tim Eyman’s recall petition against Secretary of State Steve Hobbs. Eyman argued Hobbs failed to transmit a proposed referendum measure as required by statute, amounting to misfeasance and a violation of his oath. The Court held the petition was legally insufficient because the challenged statute was enacted with a valid emergency clause, making the law exempt from referendum and negating any mandatory duty the secretary had to process that referendum. The Court affirmed without reaching factual sufficiency.

The Court of Appeals reviewed five consolidated appeals arising from a Fulton County trial court’s appointment of a special master to manage pretrial matters in mass-tort litigation. Plaintiffs challenged the appointment, the denial of their indigency claims without a hearing, the contempt finding for nonpayment of special-master fees, and the order requiring payment of pro-rata fees. Defendants challenged the trial court’s imposition of joint-and-several liability for payment of the special-master fees. The appellate court affirmed the appointment in part, vacated the contempt ruling for lack of the required hearing on indigency, remanded for further proceedings, and vacated the joint-and-several-liability provision in the appointment order.

The Court of Appeals reversed a trial-court award of $14,525 in attorney fees to a third party, Yaarit Silverstone, in a garnishment proceeding. SMS Financial Recovery Services had appealed the fee award under OCGA § 9-15-14 after the trial court found SMS’s post-judgment motions and discovery were frivolous or for harassment. The appellate court held that OCGA § 9-15-14 authorizes fee awards only in "civil actions" and must be strictly construed; garnishment is a special statutory proceeding, not a civil action, so § 9-15-14 does not authorize fees in this context. Because of that legal conclusion, the court reversed the award and did not decide the other claimed errors.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss in a negligence suit filed by a mother on behalf of her burned six-year-old son against his teacher, another teacher/paraprofessional, the school nurse, the principal, and the Cobb County School District. The defendants moved to dismiss under OCGA § 9-11-12(b)(1), asserting sovereign and official immunity and submitted affidavits. The trial court treated the motion as converted to summary judgment because affidavits were attached and delayed ruling on immunity. The appeals court held that attaching affidavits did not automatically convert a jurisdictional immunity motion into summary judgment and remanded for the trial court to consider the immunity defenses properly.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted an application for an interlocutory appeal in the case KLS Heating & Air, Inc. v. Juliette Hamler Locke, et al. The court ordered that the appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the April 30, 2026 order and directed the clerk of the state court to include this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals. This is a procedural interlocutory-order grant allowing the appeal to proceed before final judgment.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed Flint Duerfeldt’s convictions for child molestation, aggravated sexual battery, and aggravated child molestation and upheld the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial. Duerfeldt argued the admission of a forensic interviewer’s testimony that the victim’s disclosure was consistent with other sexually abused children violated the amended expert-evidence rule and that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting. The court found the testimony was properly admissible under OCGA § 24-7-702, did not impermissibly vouch for credibility, and counsel’s failure to object was not deficient because an objection would have been futile.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Edward Ball’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized from his home after a jury convicted him of multiple drug and firearm offenses. The court held the search warrant was supported by probable cause based on controlled buys, surveillance tying Ball and a vehicle registered to him to drug transactions, and the officer’s training and experience; it also found no reversible error in alleged reliance on evidence outside the affidavit. Challenges that the warrant was overbroad or lacked particularity failed because Ball did not show any harm or preserve a detailed argument below.

The Ohio Court of Appeals (Eighth District) affirmed David Spivey’s convictions for two counts of murder and related felonious-assault and firearm specifications arising from the July 30, 2020 killings of brothers Dominique and Delvont’e King. After a second jury trial, Spivey was convicted and sentenced to 15 years to life plus six years of consecutive firearm time (parole eligibility after 21 years). On appeal he challenged multiple evidentiary rulings, the weight of the evidence, juror bias, and claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court rejected each argument, finding no plain error or prejudice and concluding counsel’s performance was not deficient.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed De’Ane Peterson’s convictions and 120-month aggregate prison sentence after he pleaded guilty in three Cuyahoga County cases (2023, 2024, 2025). The court found the trial judge complied with Crim.R. 11 and that Peterson’s guilty pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The court rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel because Peterson did not show his plea was caused by counsel’s conduct. The court also found the record supported the trial court’s consecutive-sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

The Ohio Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County affirmed the trial court’s denial of Airik Kahlead Jordan’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Jordan had pleaded guilty as part of a plea agreement to involuntary manslaughter, kidnapping, and related firearm and weapon counts with an agreed sentence range; he later filed a pro se motion saying he pleaded out of fear and maintained his innocence. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion because Jordan’s plea colloquy was thorough, he knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty, and his motion amounted to a mere change of heart unsupported by new evidence.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed Nathan Jones’s convictions and related firearm specifications following a bench trial. Jones was convicted of multiple sexual and related offenses after a victim testified he abducted and assaulted her at gunpoint, and DNA and other evidence linked him to the crimes. Jones argued the firearm specifications tied to three sexual-offense counts lacked sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence because the gun was only mentioned at the victim’s home and not at the later assault location. The court found reasonable inferences supported the specifications and upheld the convictions.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed William Greene’s convictions after a jury found him guilty of two counts of gross sexual imposition and two counts of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles. Greene challenged admission of forensic interview statements, sufficiency of evidence, and manifest weight of the evidence. The court held the forensic interview testimony was admissible under the medical-diagnosis exception and not barred by the confrontation rule because the children testified. The court found ample evidence that Greene engaged in masturbatory conduct and showed pornography in shared living areas while the victims were minors, supporting the convictions and sentence of 36 months.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed Kevin Burge’s convictions, sentence, and the trial court’s denial of his post-sentence motion to withdraw guilty pleas. Burge pleaded guilty to 39 counts from a 63-count indictment after a thorough plea colloquy that the court found complied with Criminal Rule 11. The court rejected claims of ineffective assistance, involuntary plea, improper consecutive sentencing, and that a hearing was required on his post-sentence motion. The appellate court concluded the record showed Burge understood the plea consequences, the trial court made the required sentencing findings, and no manifest injustice was shown.

The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Raliegh Abraham’s untimely motion for a new trial and remanded the case for the trial court to consider Abraham’s pending motion for leave. Abraham had been convicted after a bench trial and sentenced; his direct appeal and application to reopen were denied. He filed a motion for leave and, on the same day, filed an untimely motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Because he did not obtain leave before filing the untimely motion as required by Crim.R. 33(B), the appellate court affirmed the denial and instructed the trial court to rule on the motion for leave.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s confirmation of an arbitration award and the entry of a final decree of divorce. The parties had agreed in a signed Cooperative Participation Agreement to mediate and, if necessary, proceed to binding arbitration. After arbitration produced an award dividing assets and awarding fees, appellee Shechter filed an application to confirm the award under R.C. 2711.09. The court held that the domestic relations court had jurisdiction to confirm the award and enter judgment under R.C. 2711.12 because the statutory procedures for confirmation, vacatur, or modification under Chapter 2711 control, and Dubick failed to timely move to vacate or modify the award.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of a motion to enforce a settlement agreement and remanded for further proceedings. The trial court had announced a settlement at an on-the-record hearing in which it expressly stated it would retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, but its subsequent journal entry omitted that retention of jurisdiction and did not incorporate the settlement terms. The appellate court held the journal entry did not reflect what occurred in open court and directed the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry conforming the record to the hearing so the court can enforce the settlement terms.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Lyndhurst Municipal Court’s dismissal with prejudice of Stedson McIntyre’s small-claims suit against Landscape Management & Design, Inc. McIntyre claimed the company’s snowplow damaged five driveway lights and introduced a video. The magistrate found the video showed the plow stayed on the driveway and that the missing lights were obscured by displaced snow, not destroyed by the driver. The appellate court held there was competent, credible evidence to support the trial court’s finding of no breach of duty and affirmed under the manifest-weight standard.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Schuler Painting, Inc. and the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, concluding that plaintiff Robert Leghart was an independent contractor, not an employee, when he was injured. Leghart sought workers’ compensation after a June 29, 2022 scaffolding fall; the Bureau denied benefits and the trial court granted summary judgment to defendants. The appellate court found the undisputed facts — lack of payroll or onboarding paperwork, payment by invoice and Form 1099, short-term work arrangement, and medical records describing him as self-employed — supported the independent-contractor finding and no genuine factual dispute existed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Alexandria Kung’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion and upheld the entry of final judgment for State Farm. Kung had sued State Farm over the appraisal-based valuation of two stolen personal articles. After State Farm obtained an appraisal and issued payment, the trial court entered summary judgment. Kung sought relief from judgment claiming lack of notice, attorney withdrawal, and alleged improper influence of the appraisal umpire. The appellate court concluded Kung failed to timely appeal the summary-judgment order, could not use Civ.R. 60(B) as a substitute for a direct appeal, and did not demonstrate entitlement to relief on the record.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Matthew Joy’s two-count complaint against The MetroHealth System. Joy alleged breach of contract and wrongful termination for reporting patient-safety concerns, relying on a March 2022 reappointment letter and MetroHealth’s employee handbook and a reporting policy. The court held that the documents did not create an employment contract or modify at-will status, and Joy failed to plead a specific source of law showing a clear public policy prohibiting his termination. Because the pleadings and attached writings could not support relief as a matter of law, judgment on the pleadings was proper.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals reviewed a juvenile court’s orders on parenting time, modification of a shared-parenting plan, and a contempt finding. The appellate court affirmed most rulings: it upheld the denial of Mother’s motion to terminate the shared-parenting agreement and the juvenile court’s decision not to further modify parenting time based on the record and the guardian ad litem’s findings. However, the court reversed the contempt finding against Mother because she established a reasonable, good-faith basis for withholding Father’s parenting time due to concerns about his housing, utilities, and alleged substance use and she promptly sought court intervention. The remainder of the juvenile court’s orders were left intact.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s grant of legal custody and designation of the father as the residential parent of A.C.-L., following a custody application by the father under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2). The mother appealed pro se arguing lack of notice, failure to consider custodial history and documentary evidence, absence of an active guardian ad litem, erroneous factual findings, an unfavorable exchange time, and improper child-support handling. The appellate court reviewed for plain error because the mother did not file transcripts below, found no prejudice from the GAL’s nonparticipation, and concluded the juvenile court acted within its discretion and applied the statutory best-interest standard, so it affirmed.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals reviewed an administrative appeal by Dr. Joseph Badie Abdelmalak challenging the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court’s affirmation of the State Medical Board of Ohio’s revocation of his medical license and $20,000 fine. The appeals court upheld most rulings but found reversible error because the common pleas court failed to determine whether the Board’s order was supported by substantial evidence as required by R.C. 119.12(N). The court affirmed that the Board did not improperly shift the burden of proof and did not deny due process by admitting a two-page ombudsman excerpt, but remanded for the common pleas court to assess the substantial-evidence question.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Tuscarawas County Common Pleas Court's judgment after Lee Stiffler pleaded no contest to failure to comply with a police officer and resisting arrest and received two years of community control. Stiffler challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress, arguing the officer could read his temporary tag, the tag was in plain view, he did not drive onto a curb, and his agitation did not justify further detention. The appellate court found the trial court's factual findings credible, held that the officer reasonably detained Stiffler to check license/registration/insurance under governing precedents, and determined there was reasonable suspicion to detain for sobriety testing.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Robert Phelps' petition for post-conviction relief as untimely. Phelps had pleaded guilty in 2020 and was sentenced pursuant to a negotiated 15-year term; his direct-appeal transcript was filed June 8, 2021. He filed the post-conviction petition on September 4, 2025, beyond the 365-day statutory deadline. The court held the petition did not meet the narrow statutory exceptions allowing consideration of untimely petitions, and therefore the trial court correctly dismissed without findings or an evidentiary hearing.