Search

Affirms LWOP Sentence for Samuel Dugan Under Three-Strikes Law

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirmed Samuel Leon Dugan's life-without-possibility-of-parole (LWOP) sentence under the Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA) three-strikes law. Dugan challenged the POAA as unconstitutional as applied, arguing racial disproportionality, and claimed his Sixth Amendment right to jury determination of prior conviction timing was violated. The court rejected both arguments, applying de novo review and presuming the statute constitutional. The trial court's finding that Dugan is a persistent offender with two prior most-serious-offense convictions (second-degree assault in 2002, first-degree burglary in 2005) was upheld.

State v. Blackburn - Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part

The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed most of Blackburn's convictions for incest and rape of a child while reversing Count 8 for insufficient evidence. The court agreed that law enforcement violated Blackburn's state constitutional privacy rights by obtaining his bank card and purchase history without a warrant under article I, section 7, but held the error was harmless. The case was remanded for resentencing on counts 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7.

Loop v Loop Appeal Affirmed as Frivolous

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One affirmed the trial court's entry of final orders confirming an arbitration award in the marital dissolution of John Torsten Loop and Lisa Michelle Loop. The appellate court found John Loop's appeal to be frivolous and awarded Lisa attorney fees and costs. The court also upheld CR 11 sanctions of $1,000 imposed on John for filing a frivolous motion to void a prior contempt order.

Stuart Morrow v. State of WA Dept. of Licensing

The Court of Appeals of Washington reversed a King County Superior Court decision and reinstated an administrative license suspension for Stuart Morrow following his DUI arrest. The court held that the superior court erred in finding insufficient evidence of compliance with WAC 448-16-060 governing breath test calculations. The court found that the Department of Licensing met its prima facie case, and the breath test results were properly admitted under RCW 46.61.506.

Mohamad Ezzeddine v. City of Burien – LUPA Service Requirements

The Court of Appeals of Washington affirmed summary judgment dismissal of a land use petition under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). The court held that petitioner Mohamad Ezzeddine's service of his LUPA petition was untimely because he emailed the petition to an administrative assistant and legal counsel rather than to designated agents as required by RCW 36.70C.040(3). The court rejected Ezzeddine's argument that the three-day mailing extension applied, finding the statute's strict service requirements were not satisfied.

In the Matter of the Parental Rights to M.A.A.K.

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirmed the trial court's termination of R.K.'s parental rights to M.A.A.K. The court rejected R.K.'s claim that the trial court violated her right to a public trial by closing the courtroom four times during proceedings, finding the closures served a legitimate purpose. The court also rejected R.K.'s claim that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion for new counsel, and upheld the finding that DCYF offered all necessary services in a timely and meaningful manner despite R.K.'s non-compliance.

Ashley Jensen DSHS Neglect Finding Affirmed

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirmed the Board of Appeals' final order upholding a substantiated finding by Adult Protective Services (APS) that Ashley Jensen neglected a vulnerable adult. Jensen, the sole caregiver at a supported living home, left two residents unsupervised to take a personal phone call outside. The court rejected Jensen's challenges under three subsections of the Washington Administrative Procedure Act.

Lundquist v. Avey - Parenting Plan Appeal Affirmed

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirmed the trial court's final parenting plan establishing a residential schedule for two minor children. The appellate court declined to reach the merits of the appellant's claims because she failed to provide an adequate appellate record and did not support her arguments with citations to legal authority as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

EU Court Rules on Filter Cigarettes, ISO Standards, and Directive Compliance

The CJEU ruled in Case C-155/24 that individuals must have free, effective, non-discriminatory access to ISO standards referenced in EU tobacco directive 2014/40/EU to verify whether filter cigarettes comply with maximum emission levels for tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide. The Court held that the EU legislature must bear the costs of free access to such standards, particularly where they are protected by intellectual property rights. The foundation cannot rely on measurement methods other than those prescribed by the ISO standards, even though those standards have not been published in the Official Journal.

Commission v Hungary — Hungary Found in Breach of EU Law Over Anti-LGBTI+ Legislation

The CJEU sitting as the Full Court ruled in Case C-769/22 that Hungary breached EU law through Law No LXXIX of 2021, which restricts content portraying or promoting deviation from gender identity or homosexuality, associating those persons with persons convicted of paedophilia. The Court found violations of the freedom to provide services under the e-Commerce Directive, Services Directive and Audiovisual Media Services Directive, of multiple fundamental rights under the EU Charter including non-discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation, human dignity, and private and family life, and — for the first time in a member state infringement action — of Article 2 TEU listing the foundational values of the Union.

Center For Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al

The Center for Biological Diversity filed a civil complaint against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and additional defendants in the Northern District of California on April 21, 2026. The complaint, assigned case number 1:26-cv-03333, is based on federal question jurisdiction and concerns environmental matters. The filing initiates federal litigation requiring the government defendants to respond to the plaintiff's claims.

Michael Fearnley Placed on Disability Inactive Status

The Tennessee Supreme Court entered an order on April 20, 2026 transferring attorney Michael Fearnley's law license to disability inactive status pursuant to Section 27.4 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9. Mr. Fearnley is prohibited from practicing law while on disability inactive status and must comply with Section 28 obligations and responsibilities. Reinstatement requires demonstrating to the Tennessee Supreme Court that the disability has been removed in accordance with Section 27.7.

Lytle v. Lind - Split-Rail Fence Unreasonably Interfered With Easement Right-of-Way

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reversed a York County Superior Court partial summary judgment in Lytle v. Lind, holding that a split-rail fence installed by the Linds within a ten-foot-wide right-of-way easement unreasonably interfered with the neighbors' easement rights as a matter of law. The fence ran parallel to the common boundary along the center of the right-of-way, dividing it into two portions and obstructing the path used by neighbors to access the Webhannet River with water-sports equipment.

Williams v. North East Medical Services

A civil action was filed in the Northern District of California on April 20, 2026, with Williams as plaintiff and North East Medical Services as defendant. North East Medical Services subsequently filed a Notice of Removal from San Francisco County Superior Court (Case No. CGC-26-634548) and a Rule 7.1 Disclosures filing. No case summary or substantive allegations are publicly available at this time.

C.P. v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al - Personal Injury Product Liability

C.P. filed a personal injury product liability complaint in the Northern District of California against Uber Technologies Inc., Rasier CA, LLC, and Rasier, LLC on April 20, 2026. The case, numbered 3:26-cv-03304, is a civil diversity action filed from the San Francisco courthouse. Summons has been issued to all named defendants.

F. v. Humboldt County et al

A civil rights complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Humboldt County and unidentified co-defendants by plaintiff J. F. on April 20, 2026. The complaint, filed by attorney Brian Claypool, seeks damages for alleged civil rights violations under federal question jurisdiction.

Bai v. Mullin et al

Yu Bai filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against defendants including Mullin et al. The case, docketed as 3:26-cv-03332, was filed on April 20, 2026, and is classified under Nature of Suit as Other Immigration Actions with the U.S. Government as defendant.

LS 704 v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Jane Doe LS 704 filed a personal injury product liability complaint against Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC in the Northern District of California. The complaint was filed on April 20, 2026, with summons subsequently issued to all three defendants. This marks the formal commencement of federal civil litigation based on diversity jurisdiction.

LS 703 v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al - Personal Injury Product Liability

Jane Doe LS 703 filed a personal injury product liability lawsuit against Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 20, 2026. The complaint was filed with a $405 filing fee. Summonses have been issued to all named defendants. This is a diversity jurisdiction civil case filed in San Francisco.

GS36 v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al - Libel & Slander

GS36 filed a civil diversity complaint in the Northern District of California against Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC alleging libel, slander, and assault claims. The complaint was filed on April 20, 2026, accompanied by a proposed summons and certificate of interested entities. This is an initial filing with no court orders or substantive rulings to date.

SH.S. v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al — Personal Injury

SH.S. filed a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Uber Technologies Inc., Rasier CA LLC, and Rasier LLC on April 20, 2026. The complaint alleges personal injury and product liability claims. Case number 3:26-cv-03302 is assigned to the San Francisco division.

N.D. v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al - Personal Injury Complaint

A personal injury complaint was filed on April 20, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Uber Technologies Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier CA, LLC. The case (3:26-cv-03305) was filed by plaintiff N.D. under diversity jurisdiction, alleging personal injury and product liability claims. This civil case is proceeding through the federal court system in San Francisco.

RTM v Bonne Terre Limited - Data Protection Appeal

The UK Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed an appeal by RTM against Bonne Terre Limited and Hestview Limited, with the Information Commissioner intervening. The matter originated in the High Court's Media and Communications List before Mrs Justice Collins Rice. The judgment, delivered on 21 April 2026 by Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Lewison, and Lord Justice Warby, resolves a data protection dispute. The court affirmed the first-instance ruling, rejecting RTM's grounds of appeal.

Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v M

The High Court of Justice Family Division issued a judgment in case [2026] EWHC 812 (Fam) on 2 April 2026 at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre. The case involves Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust as claimant against respondents M, F, and G (a minor represented by her Children's Guardian). The Honourable Mr Justice Hayden presided over the proceedings.

Thompson and Carlo v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

The High Court of Justice issued a judgment in the judicial review proceedings Shaun Thompson and Silkie Carlo v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Lord Justice Holgate and Mrs Justice Farbey presided over the case in the Administrative Court. The Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened in the proceedings.

Re N (Paternity: Unregulated Sperm Donor)

The High Court of Justice Family Division, before the President of the Family Division, issued a judgment on 21 April 2026 in the matter of Re N, addressing paternity questions arising from an unregulated sperm donor arrangement under the Family Law Act 1986.

Arthur West v. Lower Duwamish Waterway Group

The Washington Court of Appeals Division I filed an opinion in Arthur West v. Lower Duwamish Waterway Group et al (Docket 87289-3) on April 20, 2026. The appeal challenges a September 13, 2024 judgment by Judge Tanya L. Thorp. The three-judge panel consists of Linda Coburn (author), Tam Bui (concurring), and Leonard Feldman. Appellant Arthur West appears pro se.

Hyatt v. Owens – Division I Civil Appeal from Whatcom County

The Washington Court of Appeals, Division I, issued an opinion in Hyatt v. Owens (Docket 87907-3) on April 20, 2026. The appeal was taken from Whatcom County Superior Court (Docket 18-2-00610-1, Judgment filed January 10, 2025) by appellants Michael A. Owens and Angelo Tsoukalas, with respondent Arthur Hyatt appearing pro se. The panel consisted of Judge Cecily Hazelrigg (author), with Judges Janet Chung and Ian Birk concurring.

Ashley Jensen v. DSHS, Division I Opinion

The Washington Court of Appeals, Division I, issued an opinion in Ashley Jensen v. DSHS on April 20, 2026. The appeal was taken from Thurston Superior Court (Docket No. 24-2-03590-4) with Judge Carol A. Murphy presiding over the underlying matter. This opinion should not be cited per GR 14.1(a).

Bud Allbery v. Scarsella Bros., Inc. Appeal Decision

Washington Court of Appeals Division I issued its opinion in Bud Allbery v. Scarsella Bros., Inc. (Docket 88328-3), an appeal from a lower court judgment filed April 28, 2025. The three-judge panel comprises Judge Ian Birk (author), with Judges Cecily Hazelrigg and Janet Chung concurring.

Marriage of Latour, Division I Appeal

The Washington Court of Appeals Division I filed an opinion on April 20, 2026, in the divorce appeal of In Re The Marriage Of: Isabelle Latour v. Sean Kuhlmeyer (Docket 87019-0). The court panel consisted of Judge Cecily Hazelrigg (author), with Judges Janet Chung and David Mann concurring. The judgment under review was filed June 18, 2024, by Honorable Sean O'Donnell.

State v. Harlan W. Blackburn, WA Appeals Division I

The Washington Court of Appeals Division I filed an opinion in a criminal appeal, docket 86238-3, on April 20, 2026. The panel consists of Linda Coburn (author), with concurrences from Ian Birk and David Mann. This is a routine judicial filing containing only the opinion information sheet without the substantive ruling text.

State v. Dugan - Criminal Appeal

The Washington Court of Appeals, Division I filed an opinion in State v. Dugan on April 20, 2026. The case is an appeal from a King County Superior Court judgment filed September 15, 2023, with Honorable Kenneth L Schubert presiding. The panel consists of Bill Bowman (author), Janet Chung, and Lori Smith.

Washington Hospitality Association v. Wilson - Administrative Law Appeal

Washington Court of Appeals Division I issued an opinion in Washington Hospitality Association v. Wilson (Docket 87714-3), an administrative law appeal. The case was filed on April 20, 2026, with presiding judges David Mann (author), Linda Coburn (concurring), and Lori Smith (concurring). The appeal challenges a judgment entered on December 18, 2024, by King County Superior Court Judge Angela Kaake.

In the Matter of Parental Rights to M.A.A.K. (87781-0)

The Washington Court of Appeals Division I issued an opinion in the matter of parental rights concerning minor child M.A.A.K., docket number 87781-0, filed on April 20, 2026. The appeal arose from a judgment or order filed February 12, 2025, under review by Judge Nicole Gaines-Phelps. The court panel consisted of Judge Lori Smith (author), with concurrences from Bill Bowman and Linda Coburn.

In the Guardianship of Harold Malnes

The Washington Court of Appeals Division I filed an opinion in the guardianship matter of Harold Malnes (Docket No. 86687-7) on April 20, 2026. The appeal originated from Snohomish Superior Court under Docket No. 23-4-02071-1. Appellant Brian Malnes appeared pro se while multiple counsel represented the respondent parties.

Keith Drake v. Maggie May Divorce Appeal

Washington Court of Appeals Division I filed an opinion in Keith Charles Drake v. Maggie May Drake, a divorce appeal originating from Whatcom County Superior Court. Both parties appeared pro se. The opinion was authored by Judge David Mann with concurrences from Judges Michael Diaz and Tam Bui.

In Re Marriage of Loop v Loop - Divorce Dissolution

Washington Court of Appeals Division I filed an opinion in the marriage dissolution case of John Torsten Loop v Lisa Michelle Loop on April 20, 2026. The case was heard before a three-judge panel with Bill Bowman as authoring judge. This appears to be a standard family law matter with no stated compliance obligations or regulatory implications.

Khambay v George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust: Employment Tribunal Decision 1308702/2023

The Employment Tribunal issued a decision on 20 February 2026 in the case of Ms A Khambay v George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust (case 1308702/2023). The claim was brought under the Equal Pay Act, Race Discrimination, Religion or Belief Discrimination, and Sex Discrimination jurisdiction codes. The full decisions — a preliminary judgment and a reconsideration judgment — are published via gov.uk and the gov.uk assets service.

N Ostacchini v Nutmeg Street Kitchen Strike Out

HMCTS published an Employment Tribunal decision in N Ostacchini v Nutmeg Street Kitchen (case 6034297/2025). The decision, dated 4 March 2026, concerns a strike out application. The case falls under the Unfair Dismissal jurisdiction in England and Wales. The full decision is available via the linked PDF on the GOV.UK assets platform.

Mr W Boucher v Tanyard Youth Project Ltd: Employment Tribunal Judgment

Employment Tribunal in England and Wales issued a judgment by consent in the case of Mr W Boucher v Tanyard Youth Project Ltd (case 6004994/2025) on 23 January 2026. The decision addresses claims under contract of employment, unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, Working Time Regulations, and written statements. The full judgment is available via the UK Government publishing service.

C Jones v Obsidian 22 Ltd: Partial Strike Out

The Employment Tribunal issued a decision in C Jones v Obsidian 22 Ltd (case 6031268/2025) on 9 March 2026, published 21 April 2026. The tribunal granted a partial strike out in the unfair dismissal claim. A partial strike out disposes of certain claims or parts of a case while allowing others to proceed.

R Payne v DHL Services Ltd ET Decision

The Employment Tribunal issued a decision in Mr R Payne v DHL Services Ltd (case 3306439/2024) on 22 January 2026. The case concerned claims of Trade Union Membership and Unfair Dismissal. The full judgment and reasons are available via linked PDF documents on the gov.uk page.

Mrs K Edge v Simply Colors Ltd - Employment Tribunal

Employment Tribunal decision in case 6034082/2025 between Mrs K Edge as claimant and The Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy and Simply Colors Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) as respondents. The decision addresses multiple employment law categories including breach of contract, redundancy, time limits, unlawful deduction from wages, and Working Time Regulations. The decision was issued on 5 March 2026 and published on 21 April 2026.

A Burke De Frias v Colorfoto Ltd: Maternity Rights Ruling

The Employment Tribunal issued a reserved judgment in A Burke De Frias v Colorfoto Ltd (case 6012536/2025) on 6 January 2026. The decision addresses claims under maternity and pregnancy rights, parental and maternity leave, and sex discrimination jurisdiction codes. HMCTS published the decision summary on 21 April 2026.

Mr M Y Medudhula v Lloyds Bank plc: Strike Out

The Employment Tribunal issued a strike-out judgment in case 1603692/2024, Mr M Y Medudhula v Lloyds Bank plc, decided on 6 January 2026 and published 21 April 2026. The claim, brought under public interest disclosure and unfair dismissal jurisdictions, was struck out by the tribunal. The full reasoning of the judgment is available in the linked PDF document.

Mr S Pakes v Instant Landscapes Ltd: Employment Tribunal Decision

Employment Tribunal found in favour of Mr S Pakes against Instant Landscapes Ltd in case 3311033/2024. The tribunal determined the respondent breached contract, unfairly dismissed the claimant, and made unlawful deductions from wages. The decision, issued 30 January 2026, constitutes a binding judgment enforceable against the respondent employer.

AOR24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship - Protection Visa Appeal Dismissed

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed an appeal by AOR24 challenging the rejection of his protection visa application. The appellant, a Filipino citizen who overstayed his visitor visa since 2004, claimed he witnessed a political killing and faced revenge risk. The Court upheld the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's finding that the appellant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under s 36(2)(a) nor the complementary protection criterion under s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958. Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the first respondent.

Commissioner of Taxation v Huang (No 2) - Shortfall Penalty Remittal to ART

The Federal Court of Australia set aside part of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision regarding the Commissioner of Taxation's objection to shortfall penalties and remitted the matter to the Administrative Review Tribunal for redetermination. The Court held that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving the shortfall penalty assessments were excessive or incorrect under s 14ZZK(b)(i) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth). The ART must determine the matter on existing AAT findings of fact and evidence.

Feng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship — PIC 4020 False Information Appeal Allowed

The Federal Court of Australia allowed an appeal by Chiu-He Feng against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal concerning Public Interest Criterion 4020 (PIC 4020). The Court found the Tribunal had erred in its construction of PIC 4020, which requires that information be 'purposely untrue' and that 'an element of fraud or deception' is necessary — not merely indifference to accuracy. The Tribunal's decision of 26 November 2020 is quashed and the matter remitted to the Administrative Review Tribunal for determination according to law. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship is ordered to pay costs.