Court Filings

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed a final summary judgment of foreclosure that also reestablished a lost note, reformed a loan modification to add the wife’s signature, and awarded attorney’s fees. The court held that there was a genuine factual dispute over whether the wife intended to sign the modification, so reformation by summary judgment was improper. The court also found that attorney’s fees required an evidentiary hearing and reversed that award. All other challenges were either unpreserved or meritless, so the remainder of the trial court’s order was affirmed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

The appellate court reviewed a dispute over whether a Letter of Intent and Shareholders’ Agreement created an enforceable commission agreement for plaintiff Henry McDowell after he transferred most of his company to Roger Moore and Jeff Garcia and Nautical Ventures South, Inc. The court held that paragraph 13 of the Letter of Intent, which left commission terms for future negotiation, was an unenforceable agreement to agree. It affirmed directed verdicts for Moore and Garcia on contract, fiduciary duty, and fraud claims, reversed the denial of a directed verdict for NVS, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for NVS.

The First Department modified a lower court order in a discrimination suit by actress Kathy Breiding against director/producer Dennis Piliere and his company. The appellate court granted defendants summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's hostile work environment and retaliation claims under the pre-amendment New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), finding Piliere's comments too sporadic to constitute a permeating hostile environment and that some complained conduct was not protected activity or did not cause an adverse NYSHRL employment action. The court otherwise affirmed denial of summary judgment, leaving plaintiff's gender discrimination claims and all claims under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) to proceed based on disputed facts about pretext and disadvantageous treatment.

The Appellate Division modified a Family Court order concerning custody-related communications and confidentiality after a hearing. The court vacated the requirement that the mother disclose her residential address to the father and remanded for a hearing on the mother's pending request for address confidentiality. It also vacated the provision allowing the father to communicate with and participate in the child’s therapy, remanding for further proceedings (including possible independent evaluation or preparatory therapy). The court allowed limited indirect contact (cards/gifts/letters) but required those communications be reviewed by the attorney for the child and routed through that office while confidentiality is pending.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed defendant Dominique Parrott’s appeal from a 2019 judgment convicting him, following a guilty plea, of second-degree burglary and second-degree criminal trespass and sentencing him to 3½ years in prison plus five years’ postrelease supervision (PRS) on the burglary conviction and a concurrent one-year term on the trespass conviction. The court held that Parrott did not validly waive his right to appeal because the record did not show he fully appreciated the consequences of the waiver, but it nevertheless found no basis to reduce the five-year PRS term. The court vacated the trespass conviction and otherwise affirmed the judgment.

The First Department affirmed in large part and modified a Bronx Supreme Court order in a construction injury case. The court granted plaintiff summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability because he was a delivery worker injured by a collapsing wooden platform at an active jobsite and was directed to use the platform. The appellate court reversed portions of the decision to dismiss the City's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against it, finding the City lacked the necessary control and was not negligent, and therefore granted the City contractual indemnification against the general contractor, Oliveira. Other rulings were left intact.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals reviewed a dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) of a 2022 product-liability complaint by Robyn Sattelmyer, who alleged an Argyle Infant Heel Warmer exploded when she squeezed it at work in December 2020. The appeals court held that her claims for manufacturing defect (R.C. 2307.74) and design defect (R.C. 2307.75) were pleaded with sufficient factual detail—including attached FDA recall notices and photos—to survive a motion to dismiss and therefore reversed as to those claims against Covidien, Cardinal Health, and John Doe Corporations 1-5. The court affirmed dismissal of claims for failure to conform to representations (R.C. 2307.77) and for inadequate warning (R.C. 2307.76) because the complaint did not plead express representations or factual allegations about warnings, and it remanded for further proceedings.

The Court of Appeals reviewed Jackie Pratcher’s pro se suit against the Georgia Department of Human Services, Division of Child Support Services, and the Georgia Department of Driver Services seeking damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief after his driver’s license was suspended. The trial court dismissed all claims as barred by sovereign immunity and for failure to attach ante litem notices. The appeals court affirmed dismissal of the damages claim, reversed and vacated the dismissal of the declaratory and injunctive claims because Pratcher timely cured the ante litem defect and the trial court failed to analyze the constitutional waiver of sovereign immunity, and remanded for the trial court to decide whether the waiver applies.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed most of Johnnie Bryant’s convictions arising from the November 1, 2021 shooting that killed Dylan Eldridge and injured others. The Court held the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for malice murder, two aggravated assaults, and three firearm-possession counts, rejected claims of trial error and ineffective assistance of counsel, and found no reversible prosecutorial misconduct. However, the Court vacated Bryant’s aggravated-assault conviction against the deceased victim because that offense merged with the malice murder conviction for sentencing, and corrected a sentencing nomenclature regarding the felony-murder count.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department reviewed defendant Willie T. McCullough's convictions for first- and second-degree murder arising from the fatal shooting of a witness in a pending assault case. The court affirmed the first-degree murder conviction, finding the evidence legally sufficient and the verdict not against the weight of the evidence, and concluded trial rulings (juror challenges, hearsay, expert testimony, and circumstantial-evidence charge) were proper. The court reversed the separate second-degree murder conviction as a lesser included offense and dismissed that count, and ordered correction of the certificate of conviction.

The Appellate Division affirmed Family Court’s denial of the mother’s petition for sole custody, concluding the court carefully weighed the custody factors and found most favored the father given a long-standing custodial arrangement and extensive evidence of parental alienation by the mother. However, the appellate court held that Family Court lacked jurisdiction to find the mother in civil contempt and to impose sanctions because the father’s cross-claim and subsequent order to show cause failed to comply with the notice and warning requirements of Judiciary Law § 756. The contempt finding and sanction were vacated and the separate contempt order was reversed.

The Appellate Division reviewed plaintiffs' motion for leave to reargue, to serve a late notice of claim, and for recusal after Supreme Court denied those requests. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as to the denial of leave to reargue, granted in part the request to file a late notice of claim for the claims brought on behalf of minor J.S., deemed that notice timely served nunc pro tunc, and reinstated the amended complaint as to J.S.'s claims. In all other respects the lower court's order was affirmed. The court exercised its discretion under applicable notice-of-claim rules and related procedures.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiffs' amended complaint for failure to timely serve a notice of claim against the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District, but partially reversed the denial of leave to serve a late notice of claim. The court held that plaintiffs failed to timely serve a notice for most claims but found that defendants had actual knowledge of the facts concerning one infant plaintiff, J.S., and would not be prejudiced by late service. The court therefore allowed a late notice nunc pro tunc and reinstated the amended complaint as to J.S.'s claims, while leaving other parts of the dismissal intact.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the Wood County Court of Common Pleas conviction of Elizabeth Franks for operating a vehicle while under the influence (OVI) after a jury trial. The court upheld the denial of Franks’s suppression motion except for the horizontal gaze nystagmus test (suppressed for noncompliance with NHTSA standards), found reasonable suspicion for field sobriety testing and probable cause for arrest based on the totality of circumstances, and rejected challenges to sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The court reversed the sentence condition requiring an indefinite stay at a community-based program and remanded for resentencing to limit local custody to six months under R.C. 2929.16(A)(1).

The Ohio Court of Appeals reviewed Dujuan Clements’s appeal from his June 13, 2025 sentencing after an Alford plea and a separate July 10, 2025 order denying his motion to withdraw that plea. The court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the plea-withdrawal issue because Clements’s notice of appeal only designated the sentencing judgment. The court reversed the trial court’s assessment of fees for appointed counsel, concluding that imposing those fees after waiving mandatory prosecution costs was an abuse of discretion. The remainder of the sentencing judgment was affirmed.

The Ohio Court of Appeals reviewed a domestic relations case in which Beth Saari and Joshua Fieweger divorced and the trial court divided marital assets, including complex stock awards and bank accounts, and resolved temporary spousal support and alleged financial misconduct. The appellate court affirmed most rulings (including findings about unvested awards, temporary support termination, and financial-misconduct remedies) but reversed in part and remanded. The court found the trial court failed to adequately explain an unequal distributive award, misallocated value for a Computershare account (duplicative of Fidelity holdings), and left unclear its valuation and treatment of newly vested stock/options, requiring clarification on remand.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed a nonfinal trial-court order in a landlord-tenant dispute. The court affirmed the portions of the order that related to the landlord’s summary proceedings for possession, but dismissed the appeal as to the trial court’s determination on a tenants’ motion to determine rents for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The panel held that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) limits interlocutory appeals to orders determining the right to immediate possession, and an order resolving rents is not an enumerated, appealable nonfinal order.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed Neely Petrie-Blanchard’s conviction for first-degree murder but reversed her mandatory life sentence and remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to renew the offer of counsel before sentencing. Although Petrie-Blanchard validly waived counsel and proceeded pro se at trial after an adequate Faretta inquiry, the court did not re-offer counsel at the separate, critical sentencing stage. The panel held that failing to renew the offer of counsel at sentencing is fundamental error and requires resentencing with appointed counsel or an explicit waiver.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of J.J.A.’s motion to suppress but reversed the juvenile disposition order adjudicating him delinquent for possession of a firearm by a minor. The appellate court found the disposition order failed to state the statutory maximum penalty and did not award or specify predisposition credit for time served, as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d)(2). Because the commitment at issue is effectively determinate (it will end before the department’s authority expires), the court ordered the trial court to enter a corrected disposition specifying the maximum penalty and the amount of credit.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court order requiring father Nomeli Nunez to pay monthly support and health-insurance contributions for his adult daughter, O.F.N., who the trial court found requires substantial care and personal supervision because of disabilities beginning before age 18. The appeals court found sufficient evidence of disabling physical and mental conditions, the mother’s caregiving role, and the parents’ relative financial resources to support the award and arrearage calculation. The court reversed the award of the mother’s $25,468.46 attorney’s fees because the billing records were too heavily redacted to support the fee award and remanded that issue for further proceedings.

The Court of Appeals reviewed two Williamson County district court orders: (1) denying Luke Dillon’s petition to modify the parent-child relationship, and (2) granting in part and denying in part his motion to enforce their 2019 agreed divorce decree. The court held that Dillon failed to prove a material and substantial change in circumstances to justify the conservatorship changes he sought, but the trial court abused its discretion by granting two conservatorship modifications (exclusive psychiatric-consent to Bamford and mandatory therapist-determined therapy frequency). On enforcement, the court found Bamford improperly claimed the children in 2019 and awarded Dillon $8,774, but affirmed denial of relief for alleged 2021 tax harms.

The Court of Appeals reviewed a divorce decree that divided the parties’ community estate, awarded the husband (Rosendo) his separate real property, and gave the wife (Maria) a $96,200 money judgment for community funds used to pay the husband’s mortgage. The court held the trial court abused its discretion by assigning an SBA loan balance ($163,136) for Action Ready Mix, LLC to the community and awarding it to Maria because the record showed the loan was the company’s obligation and contained no evidence Maria was personally liable. The court therefore reversed and remanded the property-division provisions and affirmed the remainder of the decree.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District of Texas affirmed Stephen Boswell’s convictions for aggravated assault and assault-family violence but reversed and rendered an acquittal for continuous family violence. Boswell argued the indictment’s “on or about” date for the aggravated assault differed from the date proven at trial and thus the evidence was insufficient; the court rejected that argument as contrary to settled precedent. The State conceded that punishing Boswell for both aggravated assault and continuous family violence would violate double-jeopardy principles, so the court vacated the continuous-family-violence conviction and rendered an acquittal for that count.

The Court of Appeals reviewed a jury verdict finding the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) negligent after a TxDOT-operated ferry struck the landing, injuring passenger Christopher Gover and his four minor children. TxDOT argued sovereign immunity applied under the Texas Tort Claims Act emergency exception, the plaintiff lacked expert proof of breach, and there was no evidence to support the children’s pain and mental anguish awards. The court affirmed the jury finding that the captain was not reacting to an emergency and that TxDOT breached the duty to warn passengers, but reversed the awards to the children for past physical pain and mental anguish as legally insufficient.

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 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 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 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 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 appellate court reviewed a foreclosure action by Associated Bank against defendants including John Morrison. The court held that a 1995 quitclaim deed conveyed immediate title to Morrison and his siblings as tenants in common while reserving a life estate to the grantor, Rosa McShan. Because McShan had the authority to encumber only her life estate, the 2007 mortgage only attached to that life estate and was extinguished on her death. The court reversed the trial court’s grant of foreclosure and vacated related orders as to Morrison’s interest, but it affirmed denial of Morrison’s Consumer Fraud Act claim.