Court Rulings

On appeal in a case alleging sexual abuse during the minority of a minor plaintiff, the arguments that the Court of Appeals failed to consider the General Assembly's intention to apply the 2021 accrual statute governing such claims retroactively, and the further claims that -- even if the Court of Appeals was correct with regard to the retroactive application of that accrual statute -- it erred in its determination that plaintiff was aware of her injuries and their causal connection to the alleged sexual abuse before she reached the age of majority, are rejected. The judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding the decision of the Circuit Court sustaining a plea in bar based on the statute of limitations is affirmed.

Appellant Warren Black demanded an evidentiary hearing to challenge a petition for a harassment restraining order (HRO) filed by respondent Karla Mitchell. The district court granted the HRO, reasoning that Black had violated active HROs by harassing Mitchell at least three times. Black asks us to reverse the district court's decision granting the HRO request. We affirm because the record supports the district court's finding that Black engaged in following, monitoring, or pursuing Mitchell in violation of existing HROs, Black's due-process rights were vindicated, and the district court acted within its discretion in fashioning the HRO.

Robert Villanueva lingered inside a convenience store's retail area and its restroom for hours before store staff finally questioned whether he was using drugs and ordered him to leave. Villanueva sued the store, alleging intrusion upon seclusion (a cleaning employee attempted to enter a restroom that Villanueva occupied), defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and retaliation. The district court dismissed all claims on summary judgment, concluding that the undisputed facts supported none of them. Because the undisputed facts establish that the store is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm.