Appellate Procedure Cases
Show: 1 day 1 week 1 month All
Custom (decided): –
Sort: Newest first A–Z
Clear all
Coverage since May 8, 2026
✉️ New decisions, briefed in your inbox every morning — subscribe to Daily Case Law, free →

Appellate Procedure

North CarolinaAppellate ProcedureLegal Ethics
North Carolina Court of Appeals
Uncategorized

N.C. State Bar v. Cummings — DHC’s Five-Year Suspension Vacated in Part; Hearsay and Willfulness Failures Undermine Three of Four Misconduct Findings

/

The North Carolina Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a DHC finding that attorney Mark Cummings lied to Bar investigators about compensating a paralegal, but vacated three other misconduct findings—on failure to file 1099s (no willfulness finding by the DHC), a courtroom recording device (no evidence of an actual misrepresentation), and a residency misrepresentation (prior out-of-court statement inadmissible under Rules 804(b)(5) and 803(24) because the declarant testified live at the hearing). The case was remanded for the DHC to reconsider appropriate discipline based only on the violations that survived review.

WyomingAppellate ProcedureConstitutionalCriminal
Wyoming Supreme Court
Uncategorized

Campbell v. State — Totality of Circumstances, Not Paragraph-by-Paragraph Scrutiny, Controls Probable Cause Review

/

The Wyoming Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the denial of Christopher Campbell’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his Evanston residence, holding that Deputy Barker’s search-warrant affidavit established probable cause under the totality-of-circumstances test. The court rejected Campbell’s paragraph-by-paragraph critique of the affidavit as methodologically improper: Wyoming law requires courts to evaluate the affidavit as a whole, not in piecemeal fashion. Viewed in its totality, a convergence of circumstantial links—a matching U-Haul seen at the residence, receipts tying an associate to both the truck and the address, Arizona connections shared by the stolen vehicle and the occupants, and matching tire tracks—established the required nexus between the evidence sought and the place to be searched.

New YorkAppellate ProcedureCriminal Procedurediscovery
Appellate Division, Second Department
Uncategorized

People ex rel. Barta v. Richards — Second Department Sustains Habeas Writ After Deficient Supplemental Certificate of Compliance

/

The Appellate Division, Second Department sustained a habeas writ for a defendant held more than 90 days without a valid certificate of compliance, finding the People’s supplemental CoC deficient because 60-plus automatic discovery items—including mandatory impeachment materials—remained outstanding at the time of filing.

PennsylvaniaAppellate ProcedureWorkers Compensation
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Uncategorized

Niculcea v. Susquehanna Valley NRC (WCAB) — Substantial Evidence Supports WCJ Credibility Determination; Capricious Disregard Standard Applied to Pro Se Workers’ Comp Appeal

/

The Commonwealth Court affirmed denial of workers’ compensation benefits to a pro se claimant, holding that substantial evidence supported the WCJ’s credibility determinations and that rejecting a claimant’s medical evidence is not capricious disregard — and rejecting the employer’s motion to quash under the post-2014 version of Pa.R.A.P. 1513.

New YorkAppellate ProcedureCivil Proceduredefamation
Appellate Division, First Department
Uncategorized

Leffler v. Kotick — Defamation Defendant Barred From Raising Privilege Defense He Strategically Withheld in First Summary Judgment Motion

/

The First Department applies the law of the case doctrine to bar a pro se defamation defendant from asserting privilege on a second summary judgment motion, where he had deliberately withheld the defense in the first motion and the prior appellate decision found his statements went to a ‘nonprivileged party.’

UtahAppellate ProcedureCivil ProcedureFamily Law
Court of Appeals of Utah
Uncategorized

Christensen v. Christensen — District Court Must Hold Hearing and Apply Independent Review to Commissioner’s Child Support Recommendation

/

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed a post-decree minivan enforcement order because ordering payment of lost equity fell within the four corners of the divorce decree, but reversed a child support arrearage ruling because the district court refused to hold an evidentiary hearing mandated by Utah R. Civ. P. 108(d)(2) and applied abuse-of-discretion review instead of the independent assessment required by rule 108(f).

WyomingAppellate ProcedureBreach of ContractReal Estate
Wyoming Supreme Court
Uncategorized

Cross v. Albright — Mediated Settlement Email Unenforceable Where Parties Never Agreed on Mechanism for Ditch Access or Storage Restriction

/

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed a finding that a mediated settlement email was unenforceable because the parties never agreed on whether ditch access would be implemented through an easement, license, or other interest and never specified whether a storage restriction would run with the land or remain a personal obligation, leaving essential terms undefined and creating at most an agreement to agree.

WyomingAppellate ProcedureConstitutionalCriminal
Wyoming Supreme Court
Uncategorized

Allen v. State — Guilty Plea Does Not Waive Challenge to Court-Ordered Asset Sale Securing Public Defender Fees

/

The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed and remanded a criminal case in which the district court ordered the defendant to sell a vehicle and deposit the proceeds as a condition of maintaining his public defender appointment. The court held that the subsequent guilty plea did not waive the challenge because the issue was unrelated to guilt or conviction, and that the district court exceeded its statutory authority under Wyoming’s public defender reimbursement statute by compelling a pre-sentencing forced asset liquidation.

WyomingAppellate ProcedureChild Custodydomestic-violence
Wyoming Supreme Court
Uncategorized

Idler — Divorce Appeal Summarily Affirmed Where Counsel’s Briefs Lacked Cogent Argument

/

The Wyoming Supreme Court summarily affirmed a divorce decree granting Mother sole custody of ten children and assigning nearly all marital debt to incarcerated Father, holding that Father’s nine-issue opening brief contained no cogent argument — just general legal principles with no case-specific analysis — and that his reply brief improperly raised four new issues while failing to respond to Mother’s arguments. Attorney fees under W.R.A.P. 10.05 were declined as a matter of discretion, but costs were awarded.

NevadaAdministrative LawAppellate ProcedureCivil Procedure
Nevada Supreme Court
Uncategorized

Rocha v. DHHS — Missing Party in Judicial Review Caption Strips Court of Jurisdiction Under NAPA

/

The Nevada Supreme Court vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss, holding en banc that while a party may challenge a district court’s jurisdiction over a first petition for judicial review in a subsequent NAPA petition, the subsequent petition must itself strictly comply with NRS 233B.130(2)(a) by naming all parties of record. Rocha’s second petition, which named DHHS but not the Personnel Commission, was jurisdictionally defective from the outset, and a belated amendment could not cure the defect.

NevadaAppellate ProcedureAttorney FeesCivil Procedure
Nevada Supreme Court
Uncategorized

Lytle v. September Trust — Actual Billing Rate Controls Lodestar Calculation Unless Discounted for Public Interest

/

The Nevada Supreme Court reversed a 43 percent markup on an attorney fee award under NRS 22.100(3), holding that for a paying client with private counsel at a freely negotiated hourly rate, the billed rate presumptively establishes the market rate for lodestar calculations. A district court may award a higher rate only when the applicant demonstrates the firm discounted its rates for pro bono or public-interest representation — a finding that the firm “could have charged more” is insufficient.

PennsylvaniaAdministrative LawAppellate ProcedureRight-to-Know Law
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Uncategorized

Wilkins v. Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General — OOR Lacks Jurisdiction Over RTKL Appeals from OAG Denials

/

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the dismissal of a Right-to-Know Law appeal from an OAG denial, holding that the Office of Open Records has no jurisdiction over such appeals because Section 503(d)(1) of the RTKL expressly requires the Attorney General to designate its own appeals officer, a jurisdictional carve-out analogous to the one applicable to judicial agencies.

Scroll to Top