Gracious Dining LLC v. Lopez - Workers' Compensation Appeal

The Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board of Review. The court found no substantial question of law or prejudicial error in the Board's reversal of a claim administrator's order that had rejected Miriam Lopez's workers' compensation claim against Gracious Dining LLC.

Cynthia Griffith v. Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. - Fatal Dependent Benefits

The Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed a prior order rejecting a claim for fatal dependent benefits filed by Cynthia Griffith, dependent spouse of deceased worker James Griffith. The court found no substantial question of law or prejudicial error in the Workers' Compensation Board of Review's decision.

City of Wheeling v. Cody Melsop - Workers' Compensation Appeal

The Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed a decision reversing the denial of a firefighter's claim for a right knee medial meniscal tear and temporary total disability benefits. The court found no substantial question of law or prejudicial error in the Workers' Compensation Board of Review's order.

WV DMV v. Perez - Chemical Test Refusal Appeal Dismissal

The West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals dismissed the DMV's appeal of a lower court's decision to dismiss the DMV's appeal of a magistrate court's ruling on a chemical test refusal. The court found the DMV lacked statutory authority to appeal such matters.

Airgas v. Lowe - Workers' Compensation Appeal

The West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board of Review order that reversed a claim administrator's denial of benefits for Joshua Lowe. Airgas Mid America, the employer, appealed the decision. The court found no substantial question of law or prejudicial error.

Great-Grandmother's Parental Rights Termination Appeal Affirmed

The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's decision denying a great-grandmother's petition to terminate a mother's parental rights. The appellate court found that while grounds for termination existed, it was not in the child's best interest.

Emerson v. Emerson - Appeal Dismissed for Untimely Filing

The Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed an interlocutory appeal in the case of Emerson v. Emerson due to the appellant's untimely filing. The appeal sought to challenge a trial court's order denying a motion for recusal. The court found it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the appeal was filed after the deadline stipulated by Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B.

Capps v. OneCare Dental Solutions LLC - Fiduciary Duty Breach

The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's judgment against Deborah McGilton for breaching her fiduciary duty as a member of OneCare Dental Solutions LLC. McGilton unilaterally sold company assets for $70,000 while securing personal employment, despite previous valuations suggesting a much higher worth. The court found the trial court properly adopted the Special Master's findings.

Urquia v. Neal - Dissenting Opinion on UM Statute Application

A dissenting opinion in the Urquia v. Neal case argues against the trial court's interpretation of Tennessee's uninsured motorist (UM) statute. The dissent contends that the statute's plain language, specifically section (d), should have been applied based on the process server's notation of 'NOT TO BE FOUND AFTER DILIGENT SEARCH AND INQUIRY,' rather than requiring further action or reissuance of summons.

Court of Appeals Dismisses Recusal Motion Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal concerning a motion to recuse a trial judge in the case of Isaiah M. The court found that issues related to the recusal denial could be raised in the appeal of the final judgment, rendering the immediate appeal unnecessary.

Sean William Lee v. State of Tennessee - Post-Conviction Relief Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Sean William Lee's petition for post-conviction relief. Lee argued his guilty plea was involuntary due to misinformation about supervision, but the court found the issue was not properly raised in the lower court.

State v. Albert Dejuan White - Concurring Opinion on Miranda Rights

A concurring opinion in State v. Albert Dejuan White argues that law enforcement violated the defendant's Miranda rights during questioning. The opinion contends that specific actions by officers constituted interrogation without proper warnings, potentially impacting the admissibility of statements.

Albert Dejuan White appeal drug and firearm convictions

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the drug and firearm convictions of Albert Dejuan White. White appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained during a search of his residence, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The appellate court found no reversible error.

Jerome Barrett appeal denied, post-conviction petition reopened

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals denied Jerome Barrett's application for permission to appeal the denial of his post-conviction petition. The court found that while Barrett cited a new Supreme Court ruling on the Confrontation Clause, his claims were previously determined or not factually supported.

State v. Mario Reed - Evading Arrest and Tampering Convictions Appeal

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the convictions of Mario Reed for evading arrest, attempted tampering with evidence, and reckless endangerment. The court affirmed the trial court's judgments on most counts but remanded for sentencing on the reckless endangerment conviction.

State v. Pineda-Paz - Attempted Murder Conviction Affirmed

The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the attempted murder conviction of Hermes J. Pineda-Paz. The court found no error in the district court's sentencing or in the effectiveness of Pineda-Paz's trial counsel. The decision upholds the original conviction and sentence.

State v. Lockman - Fentanyl Possession Conviction Affirmed

The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed Stephen J. Lockman's convictions for drug possession with intent to distribute and tampering with evidence. Lockman appealed his convictions, arguing issues with impeachment evidence, insufficient evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Skyline Ranches v. Omaha - Court Opinion

The Nebraska Supreme Court has issued an opinion in the case of Skyline Ranches v. Omaha. This document represents the court's final decision on the matter, providing a ruling on the legal issues presented.

State v. Starkey - Possession Conviction Appeal Affirmed

The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the possession conviction of Natasha L. Starkey. The court ruled against Starkey's assertions that the district court erred in admitting evidence or denying her motion to suppress physical evidence obtained during a search at the Nebraska State Penitentiary.

State v. Morales - Sentencing Appeal

The Nebraska Court of Appeals reviewed sentencing in State v. Morales. The court affirmed sentences for two convictions but vacated and remanded one sentence due to plain error in sentencing procedure. The case involves charges of operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest, and possession of methamphetamine and cocaine.

State of Minnesota v. Shane Joseph Gross - Criminal Appeal

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Shane Joseph Gross on charges including drive-by shooting and assault. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of jail calls and determined that a single remark during closing arguments did not affect the verdict.

State v. Mason - Criminal Sentencing Appeal

The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a district court's sentencing decision for Paul Lewis Mason. The appellate court found the district court abused its discretion by imposing a downward durational departure in sentencing for felony threats of violence. The case is remanded for resentencing.

Krystal Drift v. Sean Swapinski - Harassment Restraining Order Affirmed

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a harassment restraining order (HRO) against Sean Swapinski, finding the district court did not err in admitting evidence or in its factual findings. The HRO prohibits Swapinski from contacting Krystal Drift or coming within 25 feet of her home for two years.

Cup Foods v. City of Minneapolis - Property Taking Claim

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Cup Foods, Inc. and other business owners against the City of Minneapolis. The businesses alleged that the city's actions following George Floyd's death constituted an unconstitutional taking of their property. The court found no unconstitutional taking occurred.

State v. Thompson - Criminal Competency Appeal

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's order finding Nicholas Scott Thompson competent to proceed with criminal proceedings. The court found no error in declining to consider the appellant's request to discharge his counsel and that counsel's performance was objectively reasonable.

Arreola v. State of Iowa - Postconviction Relief Application Dismissal

The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Jan De Jesus Coronel Arreola's application for postconviction relief and petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court found no error in the district court's decision.

Dormire v. State of Iowa - Sexual Abuse Conviction Affirmed

The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's denial of postconviction relief for Caleb Dormire, who was convicted of sexual abuse in the second degree. The court found no merit in Dormire's arguments regarding ineffective trial counsel and newly discovered evidence.

Barnhardt v. State of Iowa - Appeal of Postconviction Relief Denial

The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Ryan Barnhardt's application for postconviction relief concerning his convictions for sexual abuse. Barnhardt alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, but the court found no breach of duty.

Washington v. State of Iowa - Postconviction Relief Appeal

The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Bobby Ray Washington's application for postconviction relief. The court found that Washington's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was not preserved and that he failed to prove actual innocence.

Auto Owners Insurance v. Labor Commission - Workers' Comp Recovery Dispute

The Utah Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between an injured employee and their employer/insurer regarding the sharing of a third-party recovery. The court affirmed the Labor Commission's interpretation that the employer and insurer must share in the expenses of obtaining the recovery proportionally to their total interest, including future offsets, and must reimburse the employee for their share of expenses before offsetting future benefits.

In re B.G. - Utah Supreme Court Opinion

The Utah Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of In re B.G., addressing the process for out-of-state parental fitness evaluations when a child is removed from a custodial parent. The court considered whether the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) was appropriately applied and whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to its use.

State v. Jennings - Utah Supreme Court Opinion

The Utah Supreme Court issued an opinion in State v. Jennings, addressing the standard required for a defendant to establish a prima facie claim of justification under the Pretrial Justification Statute. The court clarified the evidentiary burden on defendants seeking to have a justification defense determined before trial.

State v. Blackwing - Utah Supreme Court Opinion

The Utah Supreme Court issued an opinion in State v. Blackwing, addressing the admissibility of evidence in a criminal case. The court held that evidence intrinsic to a charged crime is not subject to rule 404(b) regarding other acts evidence, reversing in part a lower court's decision.

Van Dusen v. Wasatch County - Utah Supreme Court Opinion

The Utah Supreme Court has issued an opinion in Van Dusen v. Wasatch County. The court granted a motion to suspend an injunction that had halted construction of a temple, allowing construction to resume pending the resolution of the appeal. The decision addresses the risk of irreparable harm in the context of appellate injunctions.

Kildow v. Texas - Habeas Corpus Application Granted

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted Lonard Kildow's habeas corpus application, allowing him an out-of-time appeal for a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The court ordered the trial court to determine indigency and appoint counsel if requested, with a notice of appeal due within thirty days of the court's mandate.

Martinez v. State - Habeas Corpus Relief Granted

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted habeas corpus relief to Ramiro Martinez, reforming his sentence for capital murder. The court found that his juvenile status at the time of the offense, coupled with the Eighth Amendment, necessitated a sentence modification.

Gallamore George Stanley - Out of Time Appeal Granted

The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas granted an out-of-time appeal for George Stanley Gallamore in case WR-97,273-01. The court found that Gallamore was denied his right to an appeal due to a breakdown in the system, specifically counsel's failure to timely file a notice of appeal.

Seeger Justin Uriah - Habeas Corpus Out of Time PDR Granted

The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas granted an out-of-time petition for discretionary review for Justin Uriah Seeger. This decision stems from a finding that his appellate counsel's performance was deficient in failing to timely inform him of his conviction affirmation and his right to file a pro se petition.

Kendrick v. Texas - Out of Time Appeal Granted

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted Eric Robert Kendrick an out-of-time appeal. The court found that counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal, thus denying Kendrick his right to an appeal. He may now file an out-of-time appeal for his conviction.

Morrison v. Morrison - Divorce Decree Enforcement Case

The Texas Supreme Court reversed an appeals court decision in Morrison v. Morrison, remanding a divorce decree enforcement case to the trial court. The court found that while the trial court had jurisdiction to enforce the decree, it erred in reallocating property proceeds without evidence of damages.

Gardens of Connemara Ltd. v. Longhorn Creek Ltd. - Texas Supreme Court Opinion

The Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion in Gardens of Connemara Ltd. v. Longhorn Creek Ltd. The case concerns the application of Rule 91a to dismiss a claim involving a private transfer fee on real property. The court denied a petition for review, leaving lower court decisions in place.

In the Estate of J. Hugh Wheatfall - Probate Case

The Texas Supreme Court reversed a court of appeals judgment in a probate case concerning the estate of J. Hugh Wheatfall. The Court remanded the case to the appeals court for further consideration of the merits, finding that a prior order was not a final, appealable judgment.

Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange v. Mankoff - Insurance Windstorm Interpretation

The Texas Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision in Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange v. Mankoff, ruling that a tornado damage claim is subject to the policy's "Windstorm or Hail Deductible." The court reinstated the trial court's judgment favoring the insurer.

Umphress v. Steel - Texas Supreme Court Certified Question

The Texas Supreme Court denied a motion for rehearing in Umphress v. Steel, clarifying its previous ruling on a certified question from the Fifth Circuit. The court reiterated its 'no' answer regarding whether judges can refuse to perform same-sex weddings for religious reasons while still performing opposite-sex weddings.

Cespedes v. Meta Platforms, Inc. - Product Liability Complaint

A product liability complaint was filed by Kelly P. Cespedes against Meta Platforms, Inc. and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The filing fee for the complaint was $405.

Zhan v. US Dept of State - Other Immigration Actions

A complaint was filed on March 2, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, case number 5:26-cv-01757. The case, Zhan v. United States Department of State et al, is classified as Other Immigration Actions and involves a U.S. Government Defendant.

In the Matter of Tasha Jean Kotz - Attorney Discipline

The Supreme Court of South Carolina has suspended attorney Tasha Jean Kotz for six months following an Agreement for Discipline by Consent. The suspension stems from multiple disciplinary complaints alleging practice-related misconduct, including misrepresenting COVID-19 test results and disclosing client confidences online.

City of Charleston v. City of North Charleston - Writ of Certiorari Dismissed

The Supreme Court of South Carolina has dismissed the writ of certiorari in the case of City of Charleston v. City of North Charleston. The court determined that the writ was improvidently granted, effectively ending the appellate review of the lower court's decision.

Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League v. SCDES - Natural Gas Pipeline Certification

The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed an administrative law court's order granting water quality certification for Dominion Energy's natural gas pipeline project. The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League had appealed the certification, which is necessary for the company to obtain a federal permit to construct the pipeline.

State v. Kierin M. Dennis - Immunity Hearing Decision

The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed a lower court's decision, ruling that a criminal defendant is not entitled to a second immunity hearing under the Protection of Persons and Property Act following a mistrial. The case is remanded for consideration of other appellate issues.