District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District · 2024 · Family Law
Family Lawfamily lawappealper curiamaffirmedFlorida Second District
Facts
The opinion identifies Ashlee Morgan as the appellant and Brett A. Morgan as the appellee. It states that the appeal came from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County before Judge Jack Helinger. The opinion provides no additional factual background about the parties' dispute or the underlying family law matter.
Issue
The specific legal issue cannot be determined from the text provided. The only question resolved by the court was whether the trial court's judgment or order should be affirmed on appeal.
Rule
No substantive black-letter rule or legal test is stated in the opinion text. The court issued a per curiam affirmance and simply affirmed the lower court's decision.
🔒
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 child-support appeal in Miami, Lena Ortiz argues that a prior Florida district court decision controls because it was a one-word per curiam affirmance of a trial court order involving similar parties. The cited decision contains no facts, no issue statement, and no reasoning.
How should the appellate court treat Lena's reliance on that decision for a substantive family-law rule?
Explanation. The majority opinion consists only of a per curiam affirmance stating "Affirmed." It provides no facts, issue, rule, or reasoning. Accordingly, no substantive black-letter doctrine can be extracted from such an opinion beyond the fact that the lower court's decision was affirmed. (Derived from Morgan v. Morgan (n.d.).)