Can the 3d DCA Escape FL Supreme Court Review With a One-Sentence Affirmance?

No it cannot you crafty fellows:
Dr. Weingrad argues that there is nothing in the Third District’s one-sentence affirmance that provides this Court with jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. We disagree.

Under article V, section 3(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution, this Court has jurisdiction to review a decision of a district court of appeal that “expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of [this Court] on the same question of law.” Art. V, §3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
The decision on review is not merely an unelaborated affirmance, but specifically relies on, and cites to, the decision in Miles I. Miles II, 103 So. 3d at 260 (“Finding no conflict between our prior opinion in [Miles I], and the Supreme Court’s opinion in [Spiewak], we affirm.”).
And guess what -- after determining that jurisdiction exists, the Supremes quashed the 3d's opinion.


  1. Spanky, spanky to the 3d DCA.

  2. Big ups to Robert and Phil.

  3. Amazing work on this case. These guys never gave up.

    but now 3d will just do PCAs w/ no opinion at all

  4. ) but now 3d will just do PCAs w/ no opinion at al

    The phrase ``Per curium, affirmed'' is Latin for ``we need to hurry to make our tee time''. There is an implicit opinion that traffic between the bunker and the golf course could be bad.


Post a Comment