Court Filings

The Texas Supreme Court granted two petitions for review in competing claims over a 1933 deed that reserved an “undivided one-fourth of the usual one eighth” royalty. The court held the court of appeals erred in declining to address the presumed-grant doctrine on jurisdictional grounds, vacated the court of appeals’ merits decision, and remanded for reconsideration of both deed construction and the presumed-grant doctrine. The Court emphasized that the presumed-grant issue was fairly included in the permissive appeal and instructed the court of appeals to resolve both paths without expressing a view on the ultimate ownership outcome.

Justice Young dissented from the Court’s denial of a petition for writ of mandamus by Warwick Construction, Bustamante Construction, and DLC General Construction Services. The relators asked the trial court for limited reopening of discovery under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.5(b); the trial court denied that request and the relators sought mandamus relief. Justice Young would have stayed the upcoming trial so the Court could fully consider whether the denial of discovery implicated Rule 190.5(b) and risked mooting review. He explains that proceeding to trial could vitiate relators’ ability to present their case and waste judicial resources if an appellate remedy were later required.

The Texas Supreme Court granted mandamus to direct the trial court to enter summary judgment for Bell Helicopter. The family of a pilot who died in a 2017 helicopter crash sued Bell, claiming the flight manual failed to warn adequately about flying with a loose engine cowling. Bell invoked the federal General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA), which bars suits against manufacturers brought more than 18 years after delivery unless a "new" part that is alleged to have caused the accident was added or replaced within 18 years. The Court held the manual revisions did not restart GARA’s 18-year clock because none of the changes constituted a new part alleged to have caused the crash.

The Texas Supreme Court dismissed interlocutory appeals and vacated three trial-court temporary injunctions that had barred the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) from investigating reports that minors received puberty blockers or hormone therapy for gender transition. The Court concluded the injunctions presented no live controversy because DFPS permanently closed most of the investigations and the remaining child reached majority, so there is no credible threat of future enforcement. A psychologist’s claim for injunctive relief likewise failed for lack of standing because her alleged injuries were speculative.

The Texas Supreme Court concurred that the preliminary injunctions entered in two consolidated suits should be dissolved. The Chief Justice agreed that the private families’ claims are moot and that PFLAG lacks standing, but concluded that Dr. Megan Mooney likely retains standing to pursue at least part of her challenge to the Department of Family and Protective Services’ reporting rule. Nevertheless, because Texas law now outlaws the challenged treatments and higher courts have upheld such bans, he would vacate the injunctions on the merits as the legal landscape forecloses the plaintiffs’ theories.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Troy William Armstrong’s convictions for multiple counts of sexual battery and lewd and lascivious molestation. The State conceded that one count (Count II), charging sexual battery under section 794.011(2)(a) based on 'union' with the victim’s anus by the defendant’s mouth, required proof of penetration and there was no evidence of anal penetration. The court reversed Count II on that basis, affirmed the remaining convictions, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that partial reversal.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam order affirming a prior trial-court denial of Geneva M. Kellum’s postconviction motion in Duval County criminal case number 16-2009-CF-006375-A. The court warned that Kellum’s continued filing of repetitive, abusive, or frivolous pro se postconviction claims arising from that case could lead to sanctions, including a prohibition on further pro se filings in this court and referral to prison officials for disciplinary measures. The caution cites state statute and precedent supporting restrictions on serial frivolous filings.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Michael Christopher Thompson's appeal from a Santa Rosa County circuit court decision and, in a short per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion contains only the single-word disposition “AFFIRMED” with no published reasoning. The panel of three judges concurred, and the decision notes that it is not final until any timely motion under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 is resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court decision in a criminal matter. The opinion is per curiam, with three judges concurring, and affirms the judgment of the circuit court for Santa Rosa County. No additional reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis is provided in this short opinion; it simply announces that the appellate court has reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's ruling, and notifies parties of the right to file certain post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Sheila Hall from a decision of the Office of Judges of Compensation Claims concerning a workplace injury dated December 12, 2023. The panel issued a unanimous per curiam opinion on April 24, 2026, and affirmed the lower tribunal's ruling. The opinion is brief, provides no extended explanation in the published text, and notes that the judgment is subject to any timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reviewed an appeal by Jessica Witvoet from a Manatee County circuit court decision in a family-related case against Steven Witvoet. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published with this order. The judgment of the trial court therefore stands as affirmed, and the panel of judges concurred.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's partial summary judgment holding that Willis A. Smith Construction, Inc. (WASC) is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity in a wrongful-death/negligence suit brought by the estate of Phillip Keathley. The underlying accident occurred when Keathley fell while preparing a subcontractor bid for West Shore on a USF restoration project. The court concluded WASC had a contract with USF but did not sublet any portion of that contractual obligation to West Shore because West Shore never submitted a bid or entered an enforceable subcontract with WASC.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a premises-liability or related negligence appeal brought by Joan Randazzo against Walgreens, 8951 Hudson LLC, and Dynaserv Florida, LLC. The appellate panel issued a brief per curiam decision concluding the lower court's ruling was correct and required no change. The court did not publish a full opinion here; the judgment below therefore stands as reviewed and affirmed without published reasoning in this entry.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal brought by Anthony R. Medina from a decision of the Circuit Court for Manatee County. The District Court of Appeal summarily affirmed the lower court's judgment without published opinion on April 24, 2026. The per curiam decision states only the disposition (affirmed) and notes concurrence by the three judges; no explanatory reasoning or legal analysis is included in the document provided.

The appellate court reviewed Jakina Lynum's appeal from a Hillsborough County circuit court judgment involving the Department of Revenue, Child Support Program, and Keevin-Austin Smith. The Second District issued a brief per curiam opinion and affirmed the lower court's decision without published opinion or noted briefing by appellees. The panel unanimously affirmed the judgment, with Judges Khouzam, Atkinson, and Labrit concurring. No reasoning, factual background, or citations were provided in the opinion beyond the affirmance and procedural origin.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute involving David Laurine and several family members and the estate/trust of Robert Laurine. The appellate court reviewed the record and the parties' arguments and concluded there was no reversible error warranting reversal or modification of the lower court's judgment. The opinion is per curiam, short, and does not elaborate reasoning beyond affirming the trial court's ruling, with all three judges concurring.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute involving David Laurine and several family-related appellees, including Victoria A. Shupe in various capacities. The appeal from the Pinellas County circuit court was heard on the record and the panel issued a per curiam opinion, affirming the lower court's ruling without published opinion. The court provided no extended reasoning in this short entry and the judgment of the circuit court therefore stands as affirmed.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a county court judgment in a criminal or quasi-criminal matter involving Mark Alan Lane, who appealed pro se against the State of Florida. The opinion is unpublished and brief: the panel issued a per curiam decision stating simply 'Affirmed' without extended explanation. The court's judgment upholds the lower court's ruling and leaves the county court's decision intact. No detailed reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis appears in the published entry.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed Mark Alan Lane’s appeal from a Pasco County Court decision and, without published opinion, affirmed the lower court’s ruling. The panel issued a short per curiam disposition—Affirmed—indicating they found no reversible error in the county court’s handling of Lane’s matter. The decision is final as issued by the appellate panel; no further reasoning or discussion was provided in the opinion beyond the affirmation and concurrence by the three judges.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a county court decision in a case where Mark Alan Lane appealed a judgment involving the State of Florida. The appeal was taken pro se by Lane and argued by the Assistant County Attorney for the State. The appellate panel issued a per curiam opinion on April 24, 2026, without published reasoning in the opinion summary, and the court affirmed the lower court's decision. All three judges concurred.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, affirmed the judgment below in an appeal by Chad Krueger against the State of Florida. The court issued a per curiam decision, without published reasoning in this slip opinion, concluding the lower court's ruling should stand. The panel of three judges concurred, and the opinion may still be revised before official publication.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court decision in a criminal matter. The appeal, filed by Gregory Brett Johnson, was considered on the record from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion simply stating 'Affirmed' without further explanation; three judges concurred. No substantive reasoning, discussion of issues, or citation of authorities appears in the published entry provided.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, issued a brief per curiam decision affirming a lower-court ruling. The appeal was brought by Joshua Jennings against Richard Clark from the Hillsborough County Circuit Court. The appellate panel, with all three judges concurring, affirmed the trial court's decision without published opinion and noted the opinion may be revised before official publication. No further reasoning or factual background is provided in the document.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Gerald Harrell's postconviction motion but found a clerical error in the dismissal directive. The judgment below correctly dismissed Harrell's motion for postconviction relief, yet the written order mistakenly identified the November 20, 2023 motion as dismissed with prejudice when it should have referred to the November 22, 2023 motion. The case is therefore remanded solely to correct that scrivener's error in the order; no change was made to the substantive dismissal.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reviewed an appeal by Lorenzo Gulley, Jr. from a Pinellas County circuit court decision. After considering the record and briefs, the panel issued a per curiam opinion affirming the lower court's decision. The court provided no published opinion or detailed reasoning in this entry; the judgment of the trial court therefore stands as affirmed by the appellate court.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal granted Leon N. Wiley, Jr.'s pro se petition for a belated appeal. The court treated its opinion as the notice of appeal from the February 27, 2024 order denying Wiley's motions for postconviction relief in Flagler County Circuit Court Case No. 2019-CF-000303, and directed that a copy be filed with the trial court. The petition was granted under the Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure governing belated appeals, allowing Wiley to pursue appellate review despite missing the original appeal deadline.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal granted Jose Manuel Troche's petition for a belated appeal. The court directed that this opinion be filed with the trial court and treated as the notice of appeal from the December 15, 2025 order that denied Troche's postconviction motion in Hernando County Circuit Court case 2022-CF-000614-A. The grant restores Troche's right to pursue appellate review of the denial of postconviction relief under Florida appellate procedure.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal denied Elizabeth Collins's emergency second petition seeking a writ of prohibition, other extraordinary relief, and an immediate constitutional stay against the trial judge. The court issued a short per curiam order denying the petition and cited Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.330(i) and Delgado v. Miller as supporting authority. No respondent appeared, and three judges concurred. The denial is subject to any timely authorized motion under the appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed an Anders appeal by Clifton Cinamon challenging the revocation of his community control and the subsequent sentence. The court found no reversible error in the appeal but identified a clerical mistake: the written sentence states 56.750 months, while the oral pronouncement was 56.7 months. Because the orally pronounced sentence controls, the court remanded for the trial court to correct the scrivener's error in the written judgment. The correction is ministerial and does not require the defendant's presence.

The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal granted Charles Jeffrey McPherson's petition for a belated appeal. The court ordered that this opinion be filed with the trial court and treated as the notice of appeal from the February 17, 2026 judgment and sentence in Clay County Circuit Court case number 10-2025-CF-874-A, under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(6)(D). The court issued its disposition without the State appearing and noted that the decision is not final until any timely authorized post-opinion motions are resolved.