Court Filings

The Court of Appeals determined it lacks jurisdiction over Santavious Roberts's appeal from a November 21, 2024 felony-murder conviction and life sentence because the Georgia Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases in which the death penalty could be imposed. The Court of Appeals therefore transferred the appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia for disposition, citing the state constitution, the felony-murder statute, and recent precedent recognizing the Supreme Court's practice of reviewing all murder cases even when death was not sought.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Reginald Harvey’s application for discretionary appeal from the trial court’s December 30, 2025 denial of his motion to correct sentence because the application was filed beyond the 30-day statutory deadline. Harvey had been convicted in 2016 and previously sentenced as a recidivist; he sought to challenge that sentence as void. The court held it lacks jurisdiction to consider untimely discretionary applications under OCGA § 5-6-35(d) and relevant precedent, so Harvey’s March 10, 2026 filing (70 days after the order) was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted an application for interlocutory appeal filed by Fowl Life Foods, LLC in the case against Matthew Gray. The court's order allows the appellant to file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the order (dated April 1, 2026) and directs the superior court clerk to include this order in the record sent to the Court of Appeals. The decision is procedural: the court accepted review of an otherwise non-final interlocutory matter and set the filing and record-transmission requirements to effectuate that review.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for an interlocutory appeal filed by Desmond Camp in two criminal cases (LC Nos. 25CR0733 and 26CR0023) and denied the application on April 1, 2026. The order is brief: the court reviewed the request for permission to take an appeal before final judgment and concluded that interlocutory review was not warranted, issuing a simple denial without published opinion or extended reasoning. The clerk certified the order as an extract from the court minutes.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted Chick‑fil‑A, Inc.'s application for an interlocutory appeal in the case Chick‑fil‑A, Inc. v. Matthew Gray. The court ordered that the appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the April 1, 2026 order and directed the Superior Court clerk to include this order in the record sent to the Court of Appeals. This is an administrative order allowing the interlocutory appeal to proceed, not a decision on the merits of the underlying dispute.

The Georgia Court of Appeals reviewed the record and determined that discretionary review was not appropriate in William Paul Bradley, Jr.’s case. The court concluded that granting the application for discretionary appeal was improvident and therefore dismissed the appeal. This order ends this Court of Appeals proceeding without addressing the merits of the underlying dispute.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Payne’s appeal as a nullity because the appellant, Wesley Payne, had died before substitution of the estate occurred, and Georgia law treats further proceedings as void as to a deceased party until someone is substituted. The trial court had dismissed the case for discovery violations after Payne’s death; the appellate court held that actions taken after his death are void as to him. The court remanded for the trial court to resolve pending motions to substitute the estate and, if appropriate, to reconsider defendants’ dismissal motions.

The Georgia Court of Appeals reviewed the record in Anderson v. Anderson and determined the case was not suitable for discretionary review. The court concluded that granting the appeal was improvident and therefore dismissed the appeal. The order is a short procedural disposition without discussion of the underlying merits of the parties' dispute.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Jesse James Larson’s direct appeal from a trial court divorce decree because Georgia law requires appeals in divorce matters to be pursued by application for discretionary review. The court explained that compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure under OCGA § 5-6-35 is jurisdictional, cited prior decisions applying that rule, and concluded it lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits. The dismissal leaves the trial court decree in place unless the appellant pursues the correct discretionary-review procedure if timely available.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted an application for discretionary appeal filed by Wirth Forestry, LLC and others in a case against Heard County, Georgia. The court ordered that the appellants may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the order and instructed the Clerk of the Superior Court to include this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals. The order simply grants permission to pursue an appeal and sets procedural steps for transmitting the record; it does not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded defendant Derrick J. Wilson’s convictions for multiple counts of rape and gross sexual imposition arising from allegations by his stepdaughter. The court upheld the convictions and most evidentiary rulings (including Mayerson Center and therapist testimony under the medical-diagnosis exception) but found sentencing error: the trial court failed to make the statutory findings required for consecutive sentences. The court vacated the consecutive nature of the sentence and remanded for resentencing limited to the consecutive-sentence findings.

The court reviewed an appeal by Rialto on Hurstbourne, LLC against US LBM Operating Co. after the trial court granted summary judgment to US LBM and denied Rialto’s motion. The appellate court held that genuine factual disputes exist about whether the ExtremeGreen flooring component breached express warranties of merchantability and fitness for its intended use (based on acoustical testing and expert reports), so summary judgment on those claims was improper. The court affirmed summary judgment for US LBM on Rialto’s design-defect warranty and on indemnity for interparty attorney fees, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining warranty claims.

The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed Jerry Ray Blevins’s convictions for fourth-degree and second-degree aggravated trafficking in methamphetamine after a jury trial, finding the record contained substantial, credible evidence to support the verdicts despite the confidential informant’s criminal history and incentives. However, the court reversed and remanded the postrelease-control portion of the sentence because the trial court failed to orally advise Blevins at sentencing whether postrelease control was discretionary or mandatory and the consequences for violating it, as required by statute. The remainder of the sentence was left intact.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Summit County Common Pleas Court’s order enforcing a settlement between Randy Dean and Pekin Insurance. Dean had sued for underinsured motorist benefits; his former attorney demanded $185,000 and Pekin accepted. Pekin sent settlement documents and a check, but Dean refused to sign. After a hearing with testimony and an email exhibit, the trial court found a valid settlement existed, that Dean’s counsel had authority to settle above $175,000, and that Dean failed to prove incompetence or duress. The appellate court found sufficient evidence supported those findings and affirmed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Highland County Juvenile Court’s decision denying Derrick Beverly’s objections to an administrative order terminating his child support obligation after the child reached majority. Beverly argued the original 2007 support order was void due to fraudulent or misidentified genetic testing, coercion, lack of notice, and other constitutional defects. The appellate court found Beverly failed to timely object to the original administrative orders and that the juvenile court held multiple hearings and considered his submissions. Because Beverly did not show reversible error or lack of opportunity to be heard, the appeals court affirmed.

Kent Elastomer sought a refund of its 2018 workers’ compensation premium under the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation’s group-retrospective-rating program. The bureau denied the request because it had already issued a one-time COVID-19 dividend equal to 100% of each employer’s 2018 premium. The Tenth District issued a limited writ compelling the bureau to administer the group-retro program calculations for the 2018 policy year. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding the bureau must follow the administrative rule governing the group-retro program and could not suspend those duties merely by issuing the dividend.

The Ohio Supreme Court denied as moot Joshua D. Cook’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking surveillance video from Chillicothe Correctional Institution because the records custodian, Natalie Magee, provided access to the requested footage and mailed a DVD copy to an agent designated by Cook. The court also denied Cook’s request for statutory damages because Magee offered him the opportunity to view the footage on the same day he filed the mandamus action, and Cook did not provide evidence the mailed DVD was corrupted. The court concluded no outstanding record remained to compel.

The Ohio Supreme Court held that the State and its municipalities may immediately appeal a trial court order that preliminarily enjoins enforcement of a duly enacted law. The City of Columbus passed two firearm ordinances; plaintiffs obtained a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of several provisions. The Fifth District dismissed the city’s interlocutory appeal for lack of a final appealable order. The Supreme Court reversed, reasoning that an injunction preventing enforcement of a law inflicts irreparable sovereign injury and therefore qualifies as a final, immediately appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4). The case was remanded for consideration of the appeal on the merits.

Mallory Harcourt sued Tesla after her toddler climbed into her newly purchased Model X, started it, and the vehicle struck her. She proceeded only on a strict product liability design-defect theory using the consumer expectations test. After Harcourt rested, the trial court granted Tesla's motion for nonsuit, concluding ordinary consumers could not form minimum safety expectations about how the Model X would perform in the unusual scenario of a toddler starting the car, particularly given the vehicle's complex, nonstandard systems. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding the consumer expectations test inapplicable and noting Harcourt waived the alternative risk-benefit theory.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the City of San Rafael in a lawsuit by 16-year-old Kaylin Pagan, a passenger injured when her friend’s car hydroplaned and went down an embankment. Pagan sued the City for a dangerous condition of public property, alleging failures to warn of a sharp wet curve and lack of barriers. The trial court found the roadway’s wet condition and resulting hazard were open and obvious as a matter of law, and Pagan’s later expert theory about a defective pavement surface was not pleaded and relied on inadmissible or unsupported expert opinion. The appellate court agreed and affirmed judgment for the City.