Court Filings

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the dealership’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Plaintiff Berman sued Napleton for charging and not providing a rust- and stain-prevention product and signed two separate arbitration agreements during purchase: the Retail Installment Contract (RIC) and a Dispute Resolution Agreement (DRA). The court held the two agreements contain irreconcilable, material conflicts—about the arbitration forum, who decides whether a dispute is arbitrable, and allocation of arbitration fees—so no enforceable arbitration agreement exists as to Napleton’s effort to compel arbitration.

The Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Charles F. Watts’s postconviction petition after a third-stage evidentiary hearing. Watts argued he made a substantial showing of actual innocence, that trial counsel was ineffective for not calling an alibi witness (Terrance Linear), and that postconviction counsel failed to comply with Rule 651(c). The court held the petition was decided after a third-stage hearing, rejected the actual-innocence claim as forfeited for lack of a proper third-stage argument, found no Strickland error because counsel’s choice not to call Linear could be strategic in light of surveillance video, and determined Rule 651(c) claims about second-stage pleading are moot once a claim receives a full evidentiary hearing.

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of Brittany Colatorti’s amended complaint seeking a declaration that Darby Hills’s appointment to a vacant state senate seat was invalid. Colatorti argued the committee failed to give statutorily required notice and that Hills was not a member of the Republican Party at relevant times. The court held the statute requires only that the appointee be a member of the party at the time of appointment; Hills became a precinct committeeperson before her February 28, 2025 appointment and therefore qualified. The complaint was legally insufficient and properly dismissed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Public Employment Relations Commission's decision allowing twenty-eight employees in eleven job titles at Kean University, Montclair State University, and The College of New Jersey to be members of collective bargaining units represented by the AFT or CWA. The State argued those positions were managerial executives and thus excluded from union membership, but PERC (and the Director whose factual findings PERC adopted) found the positions did not formulate or direct the effectuation of management policy without independent review by higher-level supervisors. The court found PERC's application of statutory language and precedent reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious.

Justice Busby dissents from the Court’s decision excusing a state agency’s late attempt to withhold records under the Texas Public Information Act. The dispute concerns whether an agency’s post-request question — asking whether the requester sought confidential information — lawfully paused the agency’s ten-business-day deadline to seek an Attorney General opinion before withholding records. Justice Busby argues the question did not narrow the request, was not one of the permitted follow-up inquiries, and cannot restart the statutory clock. He contends the Act requires timely agency action and presumes disclosure when the deadline is missed.

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and remanded, holding that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) timely sought an Attorney General opinion under the Public Information Act. Sierra Club had requested a large set of records on July 1, 2019. TCEQ emailed July 2 seeking clarification whether Sierra Club wanted confidential material released or would accept a narrowed response; Sierra Club declined. The Court held the ten-business-day clock began on July 2, the interagency-mail “mailbox rule” made TCEQ’s July 17 submission timely, and therefore TCEQ did not miss the statutory deadline. The case returns to the trial court to decide the merits of TCEQ’s claimed deliberative-process withholding privilege.

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded the case for further consideration. The dispute arose from Platinum Construction’s suit against Copper Creek and Jose Escoffie for theft of services and related claims after key emails and accounting records were missing. The court of appeals had found the trial court’s spoliation jury instruction reversible error and ordered a new trial without first addressing other appellate issues that might have led to rendition. The Supreme Court held that appellate courts must first decide rendition issues and that the court of appeals’ harm analysis was insufficient.

The Texas Supreme Court denied review of an appeal in an asbestos wrongful-death case involving Howmet Aerospace and the Burford family. Justice Young concurred in the denial while criticizing the court of appeals for rejecting a prior Texas Supreme Court statement that proof of dose is required even in single-source asbestos-exposure cases. He explained the factual posture (long-term household exposure from a worker’s contaminated clothes), summarized relevant precedent (Havner, Flores, Bostic), and said that although lower courts show confusion, this particular case cannot resolve the dose question because the court of appeals found the plaintiffs had produced sufficient proof of dose. He urged future review in an appropriate case.

The Second District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed a county court judgment in a criminal/procedural matter. The appeal was brought pro se by Rosea Maria White and was argued on the record from Pinellas County before Judge Diane M. Croff. The panel, in a per curiam decision, unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling without published opinion, and the judgment stands as decided by the county court. No additional reasoning or substantive analysis was provided in the published entry.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court. The appeal was brought by Jennifer Suzanne Waters against the State of Florida following a proceeding in the Circuit Court for DeSoto County. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment without a published opinion, and all three judges concurred. No new legal analysis or changes to the trial-court outcome were announced in this short entry.

The District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's dismissal of a misdemeanor information charging Christine Heidi Scott with resisting or obstructing officers without violence. The trial court had required ever-more specific allegations about the exact legal duties the deputies were performing and dismissed the second amended information as vague. The appellate court held the original information was legally sufficient because it tracked the statute, gave date and place, and provided adequate notice; any further detail was a matter for proof or for a statement of particulars, not a required element of the charging document.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute between Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc. (doing business as JET ICU) and two Blue Cross entities. The appeal challenged the circuit court's judgment, but the appellate court, in a per curiam opinion, concluded that the lower-court ruling should stand and issued an affirmance without published opinion. The panel unanimously agreed to affirm, with no extended written analysis included in the opinion provided.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, affirmed a county court decision in an appeal brought by Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc. (d/b/a Jet ICU) against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company (d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana). The opinion is per curiam, short, and simply states the judgment was affirmed without published reasoning in this entry. The panel of judges Lucas (C.J.), Kelly, and Smith concurred. The decision was filed April 17, 2026.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed a pro se appeal by Monika Margarethe Shirley from an order of the Sarasota County Circuit Court. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published beyond the single-word disposition, and no appellee participated in the appeal. The panel of judges Silberman, Morris, and Black concurred in the affirmance.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, considered an appeal by Marquise Devon Ponder from a decision of the Circuit Court for Manatee County. After review, the appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision simply stating 'Affirmed' without opinion, thereby upholding the lower court's judgment. The panel of judges (Kelly, Khouzam, and Sleet) concurred. No further reasoning or discussion was provided in the published entry, and the opinion is subject to possible revision before official publication.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal denied Spiros C. Paizes's petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a Hillsborough County circuit court decision. The petition was considered on its merits and the appellate court, in a brief per curiam order, concluded relief was not warranted and denied the petition. All three judges concurred. No additional reasoning or detailed factual background was provided in the published entry.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed the lower court's decision in the appeal brought by Scott Meier against the State of Florida. The panel issued a per curiam opinion on April 17, 2026, concluding that the trial court's judgment should stand. No reasoning or detailed factual findings were provided in the published entry, and three judges (Black, Atkinson, Smith) concurred. The appeal arose from the Manatee County Circuit Court before Judge Frederick P. Mercurio.

The appellate court reviewed a criminal appeal by Markeis Daveon Levatte from a Hillsborough County circuit court decision. After briefing and substitution of counsel, the District Court of Appeal for the Second District issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The opinion was short and did not include detailed reasoning in the published entry, but the panel concurred and the judgment remained in effect pending any further review or official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling in a case where Hydro-Dyne Engineering, Inc. appealed from a Pinellas County circuit court decision involving Michael Williams, Scott Griffith, Cornerstone Mechanical, LLC, and Cornerstone H20, LLC. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. The appellate court issued a one-line per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment, with three judges concurring. No further opinion or reasoning was provided in the published docket entry.

The appellate court reviewed a pro se appeal by Norman Chris Hrabovsky from an order of the Pinellas County Circuit Court involving Trask Daigneault, LLP and two individual defendants. After considering the parties' submissions, the Second District affirmed the lower court's decision. The per curiam opinion provides no extended factual or legal analysis in the published entry, simply announcing the affirmance and noting concurrence by the three judges. No further explanation of the circuit court's reasoning or the issues decided is included in the short published entry.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Yordan Hernandez from a decision of the Hillsborough County Circuit Court. After considering the parties' submissions, the appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's ruling. The short per curiam opinion provides the disposition without published reasoning, and the decision is subject to possible revision before official publication.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal by K.H. concerning a dependency matter involving the child Z.A. The Department of Children and Families and the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office were appellees. After considering the record and arguments, the court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower circuit court's ruling. The opinion contains no extended discussion of facts or legal reasoning and simply affirms the trial court's decision without published opinion.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The appeal was taken by Patrick Gilles from an order of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, presided over by Judge Lindsay Alvarez. Both parties appeared pro se. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision without published opinion and the panel of judges concurred.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision in a dispute involving members and the estate of Emma Jean Baldwin. The appeal was brought pro se by Chad R. Baldwin against the estate and several relatives. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion stating only 'Affirmed' without published reasoning, and the panel of three judges concurred. The decision leaves the lower court's judgment intact and ends this stage of appellate review.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reviewed an appeal by A.R. from a decision of the Circuit Court for Pasco County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. No opinion content or underlying facts, issues, or reasoning are provided in the published entry; the court simply announced 'Affirmed' with three judges concurring and noted the opinion is subject to revision before official publication.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a Rule 3.800(a) postconviction claim brought by Deanijah Denson. The court concluded the appeal did not provide a basis for relief under Rule 3.800(a) but left open Denson's ability to seek relief in the underlying circuit court case (2020-CF-002358-A) under Rule 3.850. The opinion cites precedent explaining the proper procedural vehicle for the relief sought and therefore affirms the appellate disposition while directing the appellant to the appropriate remedy in circuit court.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in a pro se 3.800 postconviction appeal brought by Charles James Skolnick challenging denial of relief in Duval County (Case No. 16-2015-CF-009362-A). The court notes it previously affirmed the trial court's denial and found Skolnick's subsequent filings in this court relating to that case to be repetitive, frivolous, and abusive. The court cautioned that further frivolous pro se filings may trigger sanctions, including prohibition on future pro se filings and referral for prison disciplinary proceedings that could include loss of gain time.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed Brent Paul Venrooy’s criminal judgment and sentence after an Anders brief, finding no reversible error in the conviction or sentencing. The court did, however, remand to the trial court to enter a corrected judgment removing a $100 investigative costs fee because the State never requested investigative costs. The court relied on Richards v. State to hold that investigative costs may be imposed only when the State has expressly requested them. The panel issued its decision per curiam on April 17, 2026.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed Stephanie Proffitt’s convictions and rejected her claim that the trial court imposed a vindictive sentence after she declined the State’s plea offer. The court reviewed the record and Wilson factors, finding the trial judge did not initiate plea negotiations, did not depart from the role of an impartial arbiter, and provided reasons for the sentence based on trial evidence and rejection of mitigation. Because the totality of circumstances did not create a presumption of vindictiveness, the appellate court affirmed the sentencing decision.

The Sixth District reversed and remanded a jury verdict in a car-accident negligence suit because the trial court wrongly excluded deposition testimony of the sheriff’s office organizational representative about the office’s internal investigation and finding that its deputy’s crash was “preventable” and therefore the deputy was at fault. The district court held the trial court’s stated legal bases for exclusion did not support it and concluded the appellate court cannot apply the evidentiary balancing rule (Section 90.403) in the first instance to affirm under the tipsy coachman doctrine. The case is remanded for a new trial and the court certified conflict with two First District decisions.