Court Filings

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's denial of Mother's petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking return of four children removed to protective custody. The children were adjudicated in juvenile court after a May 31, 2023 shelter-care removal; Mother later revoked consent to a proposed legal custody transfer and pursued various postjudgment motions and appeals. The juvenile court denied habeas relief because Mother had an adequate remedy at law (a motion for further disposition and appeals) and the lack of notice of the initial shelter-care hearing did not strip the juvenile court of jurisdiction. The appellate court found no reversible error.

The Clermont County Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for homeowners Vernon and Meredith Hubbard in a home-remodeling dispute. The Hubbards had obtained a $108,000 judgment against TFB Development, LLC and two individuals, Lenny (Leonard) Weber and Sandra Davis. The appellate court held the Hubbards did not produce admissible summary-judgment evidence showing Weber or Davis were parties to the written contract or otherwise individually liable, because the contract identified TFB (not the individuals) as the contractor and contained an integration clause. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision terminating parental rights and granting permanent custody of three children to the Erie County Department of Job & Family Services. The children were removed after incidents involving domestic violence, unsafe home conditions, and Mother’s criminal charges; Father had minimal contact. The court held the juvenile court properly found the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, that statutory factors (including failure to remedy conditions, lack of commitment, and a qualifying conviction) were met by clear and convincing evidence, and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the defendant Carl S. Williams Jr.’s aggregate eight-year prison sentence because the trial court imposed consecutive terms without making all statutory findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C). Williams had pled guilty to multiple theft-related felonies while on post-release control and received consecutive eight-month terms plus two years for post-release-control violation. The appellate court found the trial court failed on the record to state that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public or to punish the offender, so the sentence was contrary to law and must be vacated for resentencing. The court upheld the post-release-control prison term itself.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Fairfield County Common Pleas Court's judgment denying relief to Robert Phelps. Phelps had pleaded guilty in 2020 and was sentenced to 15 years under a plea agreement. He later sought recusal of the trial judge; an entry labeled as denying judicial release appeared in filings but was not in the record. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous. The appellate court found no arguable appealable error, held it lacked authority to review recusal under R.C. 2701.03, granted counsel's motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court judgment.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed Kelsey Amos’s conviction for Theft (R.C. 2913.02(A)(1)) after a bench trial. The court reviewed sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges to evidence that Amos aided or abetted a co-defendant (K.B.) who took the victim’s e-bike. The court concluded the record supports a finding that Amos spoke with K.B., positioned the vehicle next to the bike, followed him after the bike was taken, and associated with K.B. before and after the offense; the trial court reasonably credited the prosecution’s theory of complicity and did not err in finding Amos guilty.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals reviewed a default-judgment ruling in a bailment case where Mahadev Logistics claimed Columbus Truck & Equipment failed to safeguard and return a 2015 Volvo truck after it was stolen from the repair facility. The trial court found breach and awarded only $1,447.94 for increased repair costs, denying towing, storage, replacement-key, and lost-profit claims. The appellate court affirmed liability but reversed the damages ruling in part, finding insufficient evidence to support the trial court's limited calculation and remanding for a hearing to quantify repair- and towing-related damages while rejecting lost-profit and most storage claims.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court’s denial of Kurt Rillema’s motion to strike a November 18, 2024 default judgment entered in favor of C.M. Rillema argued the judgment should be stricken because of defects related to notice, the automatic bankruptcy stay, and the court’s allegedly excessive sanctioning for failure to comply with a prior order. The panel held the trial court properly denied relief because (1) the court could enter default judgment under Pa.R.C.P. 1037(c) for failure to answer, (2) the automatic stay rendered earlier court action void but did not extend Rillema’s time to answer, and (3) no fatal defect appeared on the face of the record to warrant striking the judgment.

The Illinois Appellate Court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded after reviewing Brandon Johnson’s motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition. Johnson, convicted in 1995 of murder and related offenses, argued his petition showed actual innocence and satisfied the cause-and-prejudice standard for claims that police misconduct undermined identifications and that Brady violations occurred. The court found Johnson presented a colorable actual innocence claim and a colorable due-process claim based on evidence of a pattern and practice of detective misconduct that could have affected eyewitness identifications, so it reversed the denial and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed rejection of the Brady claim under controlling precedent.

The Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court affirmed Bryce Andrews’ convictions and sentence for the murders of his father and stepfather. Andrews challenged the trial court’s order requiring him to submit to a psychological examination by the State’s expert before a suppression hearing on whether his February 5, 2021 statements were voluntary. The court held the order was proper under 725 ILCS 5/115-6 because the facts and circumstances gave reasonable ground to believe a mental-status defense might be raised, and alternatively the court had inherent authority to manage evidentiary presentation. The court also found no prejudice from the examination.

The Appellate Court affirmed the Cook County circuit court’s termination of T.M.’s parental rights to her four children. The mother argued her right to counsel and due process were violated when her attorney’s late motion to withdraw was granted two days before trial and the court required her to proceed that day with the withdrawing lawyer acting as standby counsel. The court found the withdrawal violated Rule 13 but held there was no due process violation because standby counsel actively represented the mother, the mother had a history of noncooperation with counsel, and delay would have harmed the children. The court also found sufficient evidence that terminating parental rights served the children’s best interests given their stable placements, bond with caregivers, and wishes to be adopted.

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's order ordering the Will County Clerk to place Cesar Guerrero on the April 1, 2025 consolidated election ballot as the Democratic nominee for Joliet Township Supervisor. The Board of Elections had listed Guerrero on a ballot-forfeiture list because his campaign committee owed civil penalties, and the County Clerk removed his name. Guerrero paid the fines on January 29, 2025, was renominated to fill the vacancy in early February, and the court held that the Election Code did not bar ballot placement once the penalties were paid and that the vacancy-filling complied with timing rules. The court also affirmed summary judgment for the County Clerk on Guerrero’s statutory civil-rights claim because the record lacked evidence of willful and wanton conduct.

The appellate court reviewed a dismissal under section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure of negligence claims filed by Samantha Allumi on behalf of her son Chase after he fell from an inflatable slide at a school field day. The trial court dismissed the negligence claims against the school district, board, and the parent organization (SHSO) as immune under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act. The appellate court affirmed dismissal as to negligence allegations that amounted to failures of supervision, but reversed as to specific pre-activity failures to guard or warn (including failure to provide safety equipment, notify parents, ensure medical clearance, and provide a safe slide) and remanded for further proceedings, including a determination whether the activity was a "hazardous recreational activity." The court also held SHSO qualifies as a local public entity under the Act.

The Illinois Appellate Court reversed a trial court’s order detaining defendant Quadajah Johnson pending trial on six first-degree murder counts under the Pretrial Fairness Act and remanded for the trial court to set conditions of release. The panel majority found the State failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that Johnson posed a continuing, unmitigable danger to any person or the community. The court emphasized her limited nonviolent criminal history, cooperation with police, a prior protective order against the victim, her pregnancy, and the prospect that conditions (including a firearms ban) could mitigate risk. A dissent would have affirmed detention.

The Appellate Division held that New Jersey's Ski Act applies to snow tubing. The court reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment for Ski Campgaw Management LLC, concluding the Act displaces common-law negligence claims where it applies. Because plaintiff failed to show the operator had actual or constructive notice of the deceleration mat being bunched up (a condition the statute requires notice of before liability attaches), Campgaw was entitled to summary judgment. The court remanded with directions to dismiss the plaintiff's claims with prejudice.

The Third District affirmed the trial court’s grant of D.R. Horton’s motion for relief from a default final judgment. Amerant Bank obtained a clerk’s default and default final judgment after D.R. Horton failed to respond to an amended complaint; D.R. Horton later moved under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1), citing calendaring and clerical errors and in-house counsel’s unexpected maternity leave. The trial court found excusable neglect, a meritorious defense (supported by a draft answer), and prompt diligence after discovering the judgment, and therefore vacated the default final judgment. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Shaquille Berod Solomon from a decision of the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The appellate court, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's decision without published opinion on April 20, 2026. The court provided no extended reasoning in the opinion beyond the single-word disposition and noted concurrence by the three judges. The decision is subject to any timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in the criminal case of Marlo Michelle Lauritzen. The appeal, from the Circuit Court for Escambia County, was decided per curiam on April 20, 2026, with Judges Lewis, Rowe, and Nordby concurring. The opinion contains a single-line disposition: AFFIRMED. No additional reasoning, issues, or factual background is provided in the published entry.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Michael Shawn Hastings's appeal from a decision of the Circuit Court for Escambia County. In a per curiam opinion filed April 20, 2026, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief and provides no extended reasoning; the panel unanimously affirmed the trial court's ruling and noted that the decision is not final until any timely authorized post-judgment motion is resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in the criminal case of Shawn Faulk. The appeal arose from a decision by the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County, and the appellate court, in a per curiam opinion, concluded there was no reversible error and left the lower court's ruling in place. No separate written opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published; the court simply issued an affirmance with three judges concurring and noted that the decision is not final until any timely rehearing motions are resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Jerry Lee Dupree's appeal from a Walton County circuit court decision and affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion is per curiam, unanimous, and short: the appellate court found no reversible error and therefore left the trial court's judgment in place. The written disposition notes the appeal number, parties, counsel, the judge below, and warns that the decision is not final until any timely motions under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure are resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in the appeal brought by David Eugene Brannen against the State of Florida. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 20, 2026, affirming the judgment of the Baker County Circuit Court. No extended opinion or separate reasoning was published; the panel of judges Lewis, Roberts, and Kelsey concurred. The decision is subject to any timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed De’erik Bell’s appeal from a Bay County circuit court decision. The panel issued a short per curiam opinion on April 20, 2026, affirming the lower court’s judgment. No additional opinion or published reasoning accompanied the disposition; the court simply affirmed the judgment below and noted concurrence by all three judges. The opinion advises that the decision is not final until resolution of any timely, authorized post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed Terrence Pellet’s petition for a writ of prohibition seeking relief against the Florida Department of Revenue, Child Support Program. The petition was filed in the court’s original jurisdiction, and the per curiam order simply states the petition is dismissed without published opinion. All three judges concurred. No additional reasoning, factual findings, or relief were set forth in the decision.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by a child identified as H.H.E. from a decision of the Circuit Court for Jackson County. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion on April 20, 2026, summarily affirming the lower court's judgment. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published; the decision states only “AFFIRMED” with all three judges concurring. The ruling ends this appeal unless a timely motion for rehearing or other authorized relief is filed.

The California Supreme Court affirmed the convictions of John Anthony Bertsch and Jeffery Lee Hronis for the 1985 murder, rape, and kidnapping of Linda Canady. The court affirmed the death sentence for Bertsch but reversed Hronis’s death sentence and remanded for further penalty-phase proceedings because Hronis was allowed to represent himself at penalty phase without the trial court applying current law assessing competency to self-represent. Both defendants’ convictions remain affirmed. The court also vacated any remaining unpaid balances of $10,000 restitution fines under the statutory 10-year enforcement limit and ordered amended abstracts of judgment.

The Court of Appeals (First District of Texas) denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed April 16, 2026 by Latonya Shand and Renford D. Balfour. The relators asked the court to compel the district court to rule on their combined motion for new trial, stay of judgment, and waiver of bond (allegedly filed March 27, 2026 and heard April 14, 2026). They also sought an emergency stay of execution and foreclosure proceedings in the underlying Harris County case. The court denied the mandamus petition and all related emergency relief.

The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas denied Beverly Brooks's emergency petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a trial-court order dated April 13, 2026. Brooks sought to prevent counsel Kirkendall Dwyer, LLP from withdrawing all funds held in the trial court's registry and to secure a portion of the registry funds representing accrued interest. The appeals court declined relief and left the trial court's order intact, which granted withdrawal of the full registry amount to Kirkendall Dwyer and denied Brooks's request for interest funds.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order that dissolved prejudgment writs of garnishment obtained by Texas Global Equity Fund XII (TGE) against 22 entities believed to owe money to Breckenridge Development 2019 (BD19). TGE had sued BD19 for unpaid loan principal and interest after BD19 failed to provide required financial reports, repay a prior Frost Bank loan as required, and cure defaults. The appeals court held TGE proved the statutory grounds for garnishment (the debt was liquidated, due and unpaid; BD19 lacked sufficient property to satisfy it; and the garnishment was not sought to injure BD19), and BD19 failed to prove extrinsic grounds to dissolve the writs. The court reinstated the writs and remanded for further proceedings.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal filed by appellant Ricardo Turullols Bonilla after he moved to dismiss it. The dismissal was granted under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the court issued a short memorandum opinion stating the appeal is dismissed. The decision is procedural: the court did not reach the merits of the underlying dispute but terminated appellate review because the appellant withdrew the appeal by motion.