First District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida · 2024 · Family Law
Family Lawfamily lawappealper curiam affirmanceaffirmedFlorida First District Court of Appeal
Facts
The opinion identifies Scott Hamilton as the appellant and Michele Hamilton as the appellee. It states only that the appeal came from the Circuit Court for Escambia County before Judge Stephen A. Pitre. The appellate decision contains no description of the underlying dispute, claims, or factual background. The case appears in the family-law subject area based on the provided metadata, not the opinion text itself.
Issue
The specific legal issue before the court is not stated in the opinion. The only discernible question is whether the trial court's judgment should be affirmed on appeal.
Rule
This opinion does not articulate any black-letter rule or legal test. It reflects only that the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision without written explanation.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a divorce appeal from a trial court in Tampa, a Florida district court of appeal issues a decision that says only, "AFFIRMED," followed by the names of the concurring judges. Elena Cruz is preparing a case brief for class and wants to identify the rule the appellate court adopted.
Which is the most accurate statement about what Elena can extract from that decision?
Explanation. A per curiam affirmance without written opinion establishes only that the lower court’s judgment was affirmed. The majority opinion gives no articulated rule, test, facts, or reasoning, so none can reliably be extracted. (Derived from Hamilton v. Hamilton (n.d.).)