Legal news archive
Every item ever ingested, 2075 total. Nothing is deleted or overwritten as new items arrive -- this page just paginates further back.
Houston et al v. Speedway LLC
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough. The Court grants 48 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Claims Brought by Plaintiff Jose Serrano and denies 74 Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Extension of Time as moot. (keh)
2026-10-01 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
State v. Humphrey
Following a report of an assault, officers responded and stopped a man matching the victim's description based on generalized characteristics, and the court had to determine when the stop occurred and whether police had reasonable suspicion to detain him. The supreme court affirmed the lower courts, ruling that the stop happened when the officers activated their emergency lights and that there was sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify the detention based on the witness descriptions.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Jose Angel Martinezsalcido v. the State of Texas
Jose Angel Martinezsalcido appealed convictions for continuous violence against the family and evading arrest, arguing the evidence was insufficient and that a fatal variance existed in the indictment. The appellate court rejected challenges to the first three issues but agreed that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he used a deadly weapon during the offense. Consequently, the judgment was modified to delete the deadly-weapon finding, and the convictions were affirmed as modified.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
In the Matter of the Estate of David Simpson, Andrew Simpson v. Larry Porter
The Arkansas Supreme Court ordered Andrew Simpson, a pro se litigant in an estate dispute, to provide a nonexistent Arkansas case or explain its origin to the court to avoid potential sanctions. The court ruled that citing fictitious authority violates Arkansas rules requiring pro se litigants to base arguments on existing law.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
In Re: Amendments to Florida Probate Rules 5.171 and 5.205
The Florida Supreme Court adopted amendments to Probate Rules 5.171 and 5.205 that eliminate Rule 5.171 to avoid duplicating statutory provisions and remove the specific requirement for a copy of an official death record in favor of filing statutory evidence of death. The court also revised Rule 5.205 to prohibit the court from requiring the filing of an official record before the deadline specified in the rule unless there is reasonable cause to believe the decedent is still alive. These amendments become effective January 1, 2027.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
In Re: Amendments to Florida Probate Rules 5.015, 5.630, and 5.648
The Florida Supreme Court adopted proposed amendments to Florida Probate Rules 5.015, 5.630, and 5.648 to clarify definitions and procedural requirements. Specifically, the Court added a definition for "elisor," updated Rule 5.630 to require petitions to disclose conflicts of interest and support sale terms, and amended Rule 5.648 to require the elisor to serve and read notices for emergency temporary guardians. The Court directed that the amendments become effective on January 1, 2027.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Sandford v. Sandford
The Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal found the trial court erred in applying a trust equalization provision to reduce shares for rental and sale proceeds, stating the provision only permits reductions for unpaid loans and gifts. The court affirmed the denial of Mark’s petition to quiet title to the Center Street property after finding he failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he transferred only legal title to the property.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Commonwealth. v. Jenkins, R., Jr., Aplt.
This case involves an appeal regarding an improper prosecutor remark suggesting that consulting with an attorney indicated guilt and that the decision to lie was aided by counsel. The court affirmed the judgment of sentence, concluding that the prosecutor’s attack on the integrity of opposing counsel was harmless error. Conversely, the concurring and dissenting opinion argues these remarks constitute structural error because they undermine the public’s right to retain legal counsel and the administration of justice.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
S.T.C. v. J.P.C.
The case involves an appeal regarding post-decree proceedings over a Shared Parenting Plan between parties S.T.C. (Father) and J.P.C. (Mother). The appellate court adopted the magistrate’s decision with modifications that reduced the father’s parenting time to alternating weekends Friday through Monday morning, in addition to a Wednesday evening in his “off-week.” The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment adopting the modified parenting schedule.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Quintez Martin v. Candace Griffith
Quintez Martin appeals a trial court order holding him in contempt for failing to pay child support and ordering his incarceration until he pays, though the appellate court previously vacated and remanded the case for a
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Scott Jarvis v. Graciela Jarvis
Scott Jarvis appeals a divorce decree regarding the division of the marital estate, arguing that the trial court improperly classified assets such as a 401k account and real property proceeds as community property rather than his separate property. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s judgment and affirmed the divorce decree and the court's final property division.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Jeremy Michael Cain v. Jade Raquel Lemoine-Cain
Jeremy Cain appeals a divorce decree granting his ex-wife Jade Lemoine-Cain the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the children within Smith County to complete her nurse practitioner degree. Cain challenges the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the geographical restriction, arguing it is not in the children’s best interest. The court affirms the trial court’s judgment on this issue.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Lakewood v. Tittl
Julie Tittl appealed her OVI conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress field sobriety tests and excluding a physical therapist’s notarized letter. The court found that the trial court properly denied the motion, properly excluded the evidence, and that the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, resulting in the affirmation of the trial court’s judgment.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Nelson v. Cain
Petitioner argues that his defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to seek a mistrial after jurors observed him shackled in the courthouse hallway during trial. The court concludes that an attorney exercising reasonable skill and judgment was obligated to move for a mistrial in those circumstances, reversing the post-conviction court's denial of relief and remanding the case.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Nelson v. Cain
Nelson v. Cain concerns a petitioner convicted of sex offenses arguing that his lawyer was ineffective for failing to seek a mistrial after jurors saw him shackled outside the courtroom. The Supreme Court of Oregon ruled that an attorney exercising reasonable professional judgment was obligated to move for a mistrial to prevent juror prejudice, reversing the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. Consequently, the court reversed the lower judgment and remanded the case.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Freilich, H., Aplt. v. SEPTA
Hayley Freilich appealed the $250,000 cap on damages for her injuries following a partial left-foot amputation and significant medical care. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s majority decision rejects her constitutional challenges to the Sovereign Immunity Act, though a concurrence urges the legislature to reconsider the cap’s inadequacy over four decades.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Snyder v. Virginia Mason Med. Ctr.
The Washington Supreme Court affirmed that Virginia Mason Medical Center improperly communicated with nonparty doctors involved in a patient's surgical care without adhering to formal discovery rules. The court found that Virginia Mason had at least partially waived its statutory privilege because a member of its quality oversight committee coordinated these communications. The court vacated the lower court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for discovery and default judgment, remanding the case to evaluate Virginia Mason's privilege claims and determine an appropriate remedy.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Worzel, M.
This case addresses whether a trial court must automatically prosecute a DUI defendant in Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) upon finding a violation of program conditions. The Supreme Court held that the decision to terminate an ARD program falls within the trial court's discretion under Rule 318(C) rather than being strictly mandated by statute. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions to dismiss the criminal charges against the defendant.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
McDaniel (Kenjuan) v. State
The Supreme Court of Nevada ruled on whether two probation sanction statutes apply to defendants who committed crimes before the laws took effect but were sentenced later, and whether a judge may revoke probation for a single technical violation. The Court held that the statutes apply in those circumstances and affirmed the district court’s decision to revoke the appellant’s probation.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
State v. Humphrey
The State appealed after law enforcement stopped a man at a bus stop based on a witness description that relied only on generalized characteristics like race and age, prompting a dispute over whether the encounter met the standard of reasonable suspicion. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, concluding that a stop occurred when the officers activated their emergency lights and that it satisfied the requisite legal standard.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
State v. Humphrey
In State v. Humphrey, the defendant challenged the legality of his stop, arguing that officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him based on a generic description of a suspect that relied on generalized racial and physical characteristics. The Supreme Court of Oregon resolved this dispute by holding that the stop occurred when officers activated their emergency lights and concluded that sufficient reasonable suspicion existed to justify the detention. Accordingly, the court affirmed the lower courts' decisions to deny the motion to suppress and the resulting conviction.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
ESTATE OF JOHN W. CLARK; CLOVER HOLLOW FARMS, INC., an Idaho Corporation; And the ESTATE OF CONSTANCE Y. CLARK v. JAY P. CLARK
The Idaho Supreme Court vacated the district court’s summary judgment denying Jay P. Clark’s claims regarding property transferred to his father’s corporation, holding that the estate lost the case because it failed to follow proper corporate formalities when adopting resolutions to strip Jay Clark of his rights. The court reversed the district court’s ruling that the resolutions were legally sound, finding that the managing executor lacked the authority to call the meeting or join the corporation to the suit. Consequently, the case was remanded with instructions allowing Clover Hollow Farms, Inc. a reasonable time to be properly joined as a party to the action.
2026-10-01 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
TSM v. Family Service of Rhode Island
REDACTED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommending that FSRI's sanctions motion (ECF No. 64 ) to dismiss this case with prejudice be granted, except that FSRI's request for attorney's fees caused by the sanctions motion should be denied. Objections to R&R due by 10/14/2026. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan on 9/30/2026. (DaCruz, Kayla)
2026-09-30 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
Matich v. O'Brien et al
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 54 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Kelly Matich. For the foregoing reasons, the moving plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (Doc. 54) will be granted in part and denied in part. The motion will be granted with respect to the plaintiffs claim for intrusion upon seclusion invasion of privacy, and it will be denied with respect to all other claims. The clerk will be directed to enter judgment of liability with respect to the plaintiffs intrusion upon seclusion invasion of privacy claim. The court will further consider on its own initiative whether summary judgment should be entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff with respect to all other claims, after providing the parties with notice and an opportunity to respond. After disposition of the courts sua sponte motion for summary judgment, this matter will be set down for a jury trial with respect to all remaining issues, including the issue of damages with respect to the plaintiffs claim for intrusion upon seclusion invasion of privacy.An appropriate order follows. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Saporito, Jr on 9/30/26. (ms)
2026-09-30 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
Pearson v. KWTV Channel 9 et al
udgment without further notice. Signed by Judge Patrick R Wyrick on 9/30/2026. (ekw)ORDER granting 11 Del City Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; granting 13 Defendant Judge Jason Glidewell's Motion to Dismiss; granting 15 Griffin Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (all as more fully set out in the order). Plaintiff may file an amended complaint as to his claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against the City of Del City and the Griffin Defendants within 21 days of this Order. If Plaintiff does not timely file an amended complaint, the Court will enter j
2026-09-30 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
MANNING v. PINE RIDGE HEALTH & REHAB CENTER
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERsigned by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 09/30/2026, that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 43), in each of these cases is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in Case No. 1:24-cv-893, Defendant's Motion to Continue Trial, (Doc. 50), and Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude, (Doc. 56), are DENIED as MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in Case No. 1:24-cv-894, Defendant's Motion to Continue Trial, (Doc. 50), Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude, (Doc. 56), and Plaintiff's Motion in Limine, (Doc. 57), are DENIED as MOOT. A judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously herewith. (ssc)
2026-09-30 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
MANNING v. MAPLE GROVE HEALTH & REHABILITATION CENTER
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERsigned by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 09/30/2026, that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 43), in each of these cases is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in Case No. 1:24-cv-893, Defendant's Motion to Continue Trial, (Doc. 50), and Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude, (Doc. 56), are DENIED as MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in Case No. 1:24-cv-894, Defendant's Motion to Continue Trial, (Doc. 50), Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude, (Doc. 56), and Plaintiff's Motion in Limine, (Doc. 57), are DENIED as MOOT. A judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously herewith. (ssc)
2026-09-30 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
Woldemariam v. Becerra
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. The Court grants the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The parties are directed to file a joint pretrial order regarding the remaining claim that complies with the Court's Individual Rules within 30 days of the date of this Memorandum Decision and Order. The plaintiff is reminded that she must comply with court orders, and that failure to do so will result in sanctions, including dismissal of her remaining claim.The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to update the caption to replace the defendant with the current Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). Ordered by Judge Ann M. Donnelly on 9/30/2026. (DG)
2026-09-30 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
USA v. Sanchez
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Kea W. Riggs denying 43 Opposed MOTION to Suppress Evidence (cab) Modified text on 10/1/2026 (vlv).
2026-09-30 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
UZOUKWU ODUTOLA v. CITY OF NEWARK et al
OPINION AND ORDER granting 95 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 9/30/2026. (dnw)
2026-09-30 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
BANNER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. GORMAN et al
OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 9/30/2026. (sms2)
2026-09-30 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
R.F. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTCLAIR et al
OPINION. Signed by Judge Jamel K. Semper on 9/30/2026. (sks)
2026-09-30 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
WILLIAMS v. FASTENAL CO. et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 120 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 9/30/2026. (gev)
2026-09-30 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
Guide v. KLS Martin, LP
ORDER denying 55 Motion to Compel. So Ordered by US Magistrate Judge Talesha L. Saint-Marc. (gla)
2026-09-30 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
Travelers Indemnity Company v. MMG Insurance Company
///ORDER granting in part and denying in part 15 Motion to Dismiss. MMG's Motion to Dismiss or Remand is granted but its request for attorneys' fees and costs is denied. The clerk shall enter judgment and close this case. So Ordered by US Magistrate Judge Talesha L. Saint-Marc. (gla)
2026-09-30 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
In Re Sensata Technologies Data Breach Litigation
District Judge Julia E. Kobick: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT entered. For the foregoing reasons, Sensata's motion to dismiss, ECF 22, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Counts VII and VIII are DISMISSED, and Counts I, II, III, IV, V, and VI remain. SO ORDERED. (Currie, Haley)
2026-09-30 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
M.C. 1 et al v. Curriculum Associates, LLC
District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS entered. (MAC)
2026-09-30 · via GovInfo (US GPO / USCOURTS)
Commonwealth v. Vihaan V., a juvenile
Juvenile appeals his adjudication for carrying a firearm and possessing ammunition, arguing the trial judge erred in denying his motion to suppress a handgun found during a warrantless search. The text concludes that the Commonwealth failed to establish the specific "reasonable suspicion" required under *Torres-Pagan* to believe the juvenile was armed and dangerous, finding that the police did not lawfully justify the pat-frisk and the evidence should have been suppressed.
2026-09-30 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
Founds v. State
The Supreme Court of Maryland held that an independent source established probable cause to support a warrant despite a possible Fourth Amendment violation, affirming the denial of the petitioner's motion to suppress. Additionally, the Court affirmed the evidence sufficiency for the petitioner’s possession convictions, finding that his access to and proximity to the contraband met the necessary constructive possession criteria.
2026-09-30 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)
State of Louisiana v. Johnny Eugene Gilstrap, Jr.
Johnny Eugene Gilstrap, Jr. was sentenced to ten years of hard labor on each of ten counts of possession of pornography involving juveniles and appealed on the grounds that the cumulative punishment was excessive. However, the provided opinion text cuts off before explicitly ruling on whether the appellate court agreed that the sentence was unconstitutional.
2026-09-30 · via CourtListener (Free Law Project)