Background: Patrick J. Carr, Patrick K. Carr, and Daniel K. Carr deposited about $85,000 into a joint account at First Commonwealth Bank. Because one depositor owed an unrelated civil judgment, the judgment creditor garnished the account, and the bank paid roughly $38,000 without first obtaining the Carrs’ permission. The Carrs sued for breach of contract and…
Held: Justice Mundy, writing for a six-justice majority, affirmed. Section 7342(b) says a court “shall” confirm an award when an application is made more than 30 days after the award. That clear statutory command leaves no room for a judge-created exception based on a lawyer’s non-negligent failure to file. The common pleas court therefore had to confirm the award rather than…
Background: Metropolitan Police Department officers approached an illegally parked car occupied by Demann Shelton, Antonio Smith, and another man. Smith made frantic movements and then fled, while Shelton remained near the car and cooperated. During a search, officers found a gun, drugs, drug paraphernalia, and Shelton’s identification, bank card, and mail inside a jacket belonging to…
Held: The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed Shelton’s firearms convictions. The majority held that the trial court neither abused its discretion nor committed legal error by answering the jury’s question with a supplemental instruction on joint constructive possession. The instruction correctly required the jury to find that Shelton personally had the power and intent to control the gun, regardless…
Background: In 2015, Washington charged Karen Peterson with felony possession of a controlled substance under RCW 69.50.4013. She agreed to enter Snohomish County’s Adult Drug Treatment Court, waive certain trial rights, and pay a nonrefundable $900 participation fee in exchange for dismissal of the charge upon successful completion. Peterson graduated in 2017, and the superior court…
Held: The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part and affirmed in part. It held that CrR 7.8(b)’s introductory language permits relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding under each of the rule’s enumerated grounds. Blake’s invalidation of the possession statute was an extraordinary circumstance permitting Peterson to seek relief from the drug-court order under CrR 7.8(b)(5), although…
Background: John Accursio, a lawyer admitted in New York and Washington, D.C., represented parties in an Arizona business dispute alongside Arizona co-counsel. After Accursio filed a State Bar charge alleging that opposing counsel Clark Wu had a conflict of interest, Wu filed a charge accusing Accursio of unauthorized practice of law in Arizona. The State Bar…
Held: In a 5–2 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court held that a charge filed with the State Bar may serve as the predicate civil proceeding for a wrongful institution of civil proceedings claim. For an ethics charge against an Arizona-admitted lawyer, the civil proceeding commences when the lawyer receives written notice of a screening investigation and must provide a written response.…
Background: Duane D. Hanson was prosecuted for a series of assaults against his romantic partner during the summer and fall of 2023. The victim testified that Hanson repeatedly punched, strangled, threatened, cut, and restrained her. After the final series of attacks, she was hospitalized for about three weeks with extensive injuries, including shattered facial bones, damaged…
Held: The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding testimony from Hanson’s grandmother, father, and brother that the victim had attributed her injuries to two women and a man named “Casper.” Although Hanson waived any argument that the statements were substantively admissible as proof of alternative suspects, the testimony should have been admitted for…
Background: Donald Bartlette was charged with murder for causing Anthony Kiehl’s death. At trial, Bartlette primarily claimed self-defense, while also questioning how and by whom or what Kiehl was killed. After a five-day trial, the jury acquitted Bartlette of murder but convicted him of the lesser included offense of manslaughter. The district court sentenced him to…
Held: The North Dakota Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a mistrial. The challenged remarks were brief, came from one witness during a five-day trial, and were addressed by sustained objections and the striking of the methamphetamine testimony. Bartlette did not request the offered curative instruction, and substantial independent evidence—including video, DNA, physical…
Background: Sponsors of the “Protect Nebraskans’ Initiative & Referendum Powers” proposed a state constitutional amendment addressing the Legislature’s authority over citizen lawmaking. Among other changes, the measure would require a four-fifths legislative vote to alter initiative-enacted laws adopted on or after November 2, 2004, and to enact laws facilitating or safeguarding the initiative and referendum process.
Held: The court denied mandamus, holding that the proposed amendment contained more than one subject and therefore violated article III, § 2, of the Nebraska Constitution. Applying the natural-and-necessary-connection test, the court concluded that increasing the vote required for the Legislature to alter an initiative-enacted law was naturally connected to protecting such laws from legislative change.
Background: Sea Breeze Condominiums & Resort Owners’ Association fined unit owners T. Jackson Lyons and Dr. Reb McMichael $100 for hanging colorful glass disks, known as rondels, from a private terrace wall without the board’s written consent. The owners removed the artwork and paid the fine under protest.
Held: The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court and remanded the case to county court. It held that the county court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment before discovery was completed because waiver, equitable estoppel, and laches depend on fact-intensive inquiries.
Background: James Bowers sued Beebe Hospital for medical malpractice on May 16, 2025, alleging that Beebe’s negligent care ended on February 25, 2023. Bowers asserted that he had tolled Delaware’s two-year limitations period for 90 days under 18 Del. C. § 6856(4) by sending Beebe a notice of intent to investigate by certified mail on February…
Held: The Delaware Supreme Court refused Beebe’s interlocutory appeal. Giving due weight to the Superior Court’s analysis, the court held that Beebe’s application did not satisfy the strict standards for interlocutory review under Delaware Supreme Court Rule 42(b).
Background: Florida historically divided responsibility for its family-law forms. The Family Law Rules Committee maintained certain forms through the formal rulemaking process, while the Florida Supreme Court internally reviewed and maintained other “Supreme Court Approved Forms” with assistance from an advisory workgroup.
Held: The Court amended Rule 12.015 to incorporate and redesignate all Florida family-law forms as “Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms.” It authorized itself to create, amend, or abrogate those forms by order or opinion, with or without notice and outside the rulemaking process prescribed by Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.140. The forms will be published…
Background: Jeff Conger entered a residential lease agreement with Jay P. Clark that included an $8,000 option to buy Clark’s Mountain Home home by satisfying Clark’s Wells Fargo mortgage. About 18 months later, Conger filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Although he listed Clark as a creditor and reported a monthly rent expense, Conger denied having any…
Held: The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed on standing grounds and did not reach judicial estoppel. Conger’s contractual option to purchase was a legal or equitable interest that became property of his bankruptcy estate when he filed his Chapter 7 petition.
Background: Moisette I. Sweat, an unaffiliated candidate for Prince George’s County Executive in the 2026 general election, sought ballot access through nomination by petition. Maryland law required her to submit valid signatures from 1% of eligible registered voters for the office; the required total was 6,531 signatures.
Held: In a per curiam order, the Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed. It held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding the record insufficient to establish that Sweat qualified for the November 2026 general-election ballot.