Appellate dockets recorded as first-class rows (September 6, 2026)

Appeals were previously recorded only as sentences inside a case's status and research notes, which meant that an appellate docket number could be read but never counted, filtered or linked. They are now first-class rows. Twenty-seven appellate proceedings arising from twenty of the tracked docket records are recorded, across five reviewing courts -- the Third Circuit (11), the Ninth Circuit (4), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (4), the Second Circuit (3) and the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (3) -- plus two appeals whose reviewing court the underlying record never names. Each one appears as an "Appellate history" panel on the case page it arises from and in a new index at /research/appeals/.

No fact in this change is new research. Every row restates something already recorded on the case it points at, which is why the pass also fixed three attribution errors that only became visible once the appeals were separated out: the appeal described on C011 belongs to C042, the one described on C014 belongs to its federal half C053, and the docket number "25-1954", which appears in some web summaries of the C100 caption, is wrong -- the Second Circuit's own order gives 25-2065. None of the three is recorded as an appeal of the case whose notes mention it.

The counts published elsewhere on this site are unchanged, deliberately. An appeal continues the action it arises from rather than starting a new one, so appellate dockets are not tracked as cases and the record still stands at 105 docket records and 95 de-duplicated originating actions. The site now names three grains and keeps them apart: originating actions, trial-court docket records, and appellate dockets.

Seven of the twenty-seven carry a disposition treated as verified. Seventeen record a docket number whose current status has not been checked against the appellate court's own docket, and three are appeals the record establishes exist without giving a number -- including one on C046 where the underlying research note states expressly that the Ninth Circuit number must not be guessed. Those gaps are stated on each row rather than left blank, and closing them is the next research pass.

Related cases

• 2025-00706 — Tufano v. Motorworld
• 2025-01448 — Tufano v. PPL Electric Utilities
• 2025-03928 — Tufano v. Better Business Bureau
• 2025-05632 — Tufano v. Alibaba
• 2025-05633 — Tufano v. Lackawanna County
• 2026-01907 — Tufano v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
• 3:24-cv-00846 — Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators
• 3:24-cv-01115 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet, LLC
• 3:24-cv-01116 — Tufano v. TikTok Inc.
• 3:24-cv-01114 — Tufano v. Reddit, Inc.
• 3:25-cv-00011 — Tufano v. Taban et al
• 3:25-cv-01175 — Tufano v. TikTok et al
• 3:25-cv-01227 — Tufano v. SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company et al
• 3:25-cv-01400 — Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al
• 3:25-cv-01558 — Tufano v. All-Ways Forwarding et al
• 3:25-cv-01574 — Tufano v. Google LLC et al
• 3:26-cv-00879 — Tufano v. Tyler Technologies, Inc. et al
• 3:26-cv-01016 — Tufano v. Eriksson et al
• 7:20-cv-09346 — Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano
• 25SMCV00041 — Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al.

Note

Appeals are now shown on the case pages they arise from, and indexed together at /research/appeals/. An appeal is a party's filing, not a ruling: taking one establishes that the appellant asked a higher court to review the decision, not that anything was decided. Only an appellate court's own disposition is a finding, and most of these records do not yet have one -- where a docket number or a current status is missing, the page says so rather than leaving it blank. Because an appeal continues the same underlying lawsuit, none of these are counted as additional cases anywhere on this site.