The Scene: a hushed emergency meeting convened in the bunker's ornate central conference hall (also serving as the court "gym" and alternatively its "mechanical room/electrical closet").
Attendees: bunker denizens, evenly divided into "pro" and "con" on the topic at hand, many holding signs and cheering for their respective positions.
(There is no truth to the rumor one participant appeared fully adorned in body paint with the words "PCA" emblazoned in a particularly memorable area).
The Topic at Hand: whether or not to create a new category, in addition to Opinions and PCAs, for "Citation Opinions."
The Debate: It unfolded in the usual manner, with proponents of one side or the other hurling spit balls made from prior Court rulings, giving each other "robe-wedgies," and exchanging valuable Pokemon cards for promises of support and subtle changes in alliance or position.
(Hey, trends take a while to make their way through the concrete.)
The Verdict: After much soul-wrenching debate lasting more than 72 straight hours, a thin puff of white smoke emerged from the bunker -- signaling to the eager crowds gathered outside that yes, yes, and yes!! -- a new category has indeed been created.
Behold those who bitterly cling to their outdated chardonnay, Opinions, and PCAs, it has been thusly revealed:
And here is an example of the Court's newfangled handiwork:
Affirmed. See O’Brien v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 999 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Weesner v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 711 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Tres v. Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 705 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).Suck on that, 4th DCA (which doesn't even provide links to their PCA affirmances)!