The Conflict PCA: When an Affirmance Without Opinion Conflicts with a Written Opinion

About two-thirds of all appellate decisions at the district court level include no opinion at all. The most common type of decision is an affirmance without opinion, which is when the court decides not to explain their decision and simply affirms the lower court’s ruling. This is done to efficiently handle the heavy case load. However, some people think that this is done to avoid explaining their decision or to prevent further review. This article looks at cases where there are conflicting affirmances without opinion and discusses what options are available to attorneys and litigants in those situations. It suggests that an appellant may respond to a conflict affirmance without opinion by asking for a written opinion, a rehearing, or other legal actions. Appellate courts sometimes issue summary decisions called PCAs when they are affirming a lower court’s decision. This is usually because the court found no abuse of discretion, the error was harmless, the error was not preserved, or the appellant didn’t identify a specific error. Sometimes, the court will write an opinion if it will explain something not obvious from the record or serve a useful purpose.

However, some people are concerned about PCAs, thinking that the courts are too busy or don’t want to explain their decisions. There have been cases where different panels of the same court or different district courts have treated similar cases differently, leading to criticism. Conflict PCAs, or cases where different panels of the same court issue conflicting decisions, have been found. In these cases, the affected party can file motions to resolve or certify the conflict, or ask for a written opinion or rehearing. The type of motion depends on when the conflict becomes apparent. If a party believes that a written opinion would give a good reason for the Supreme Court to review a decision, they can file a motion for a written opinion. This would be useful if the decision conflicts with a Supreme Court or another district court opinion. If it only conflicts with an opinion from the same district court, the party should file a motion for a rehearing and a motion for a full court rehearing. The court may then change its decision or explain why it doesn’t conflict with their previous decisions. All three motions may be necessary if the decision conflicts with cases from the same court and other courts. If a court makes a decision without giving a full explanation, the losing party can ask for a written explanation or for the decision to be reviewed again. If there is a mistake in the decision, the losing party can ask the court to change it as long as it’s done before the end of the court’s term. This happened in the case of Bates v. Islamorada and McLaughlin, where the court agreed to change their decisions when mistakes were found. If a conflict arises after a court term ends, there may be no way for someone appealing a decision to get help. In a specific case, a policyholder’s complaint against their insurance company was dismissed, but a conflicting opinion came out after the court term ended. Even though the court tried to fix the mistake, they couldn’t because they were out of time. It’s important for lawyers to tell the court about any similar cases that might cause a conflict. This can help prevent problems from happening in the future. Conflict PCAs should be rare, as they typically involve routine issues with well-settled laws. Appellants have ways to respond to conflict PCAs, but they should be careful not to abuse these methods. Appellate courts are unable to write opinions for every case due to their heavy workload, and PCAs are a way to manage this. It’s important for appellate practitioners to be familiar with responding to conflict PCAs. These are references to legal cases and court rules in Florida. They explain how the courts make and review decisions, and what happens when a court doesn’t write a full opinion. Sometimes the courts issue “PCAs” (per curiam affirmance), which means they’re not writing a full explanation for their decision. This can make it harder for people to understand or challenge the decision. But in some cases, the court might reconsider and change their decision. In some court cases in Florida, courts issued decisions that said “Affirmed” and didn’t give a detailed explanation. This caused some confusion about whether those decisions conflicted with other court decisions. One court said it’s not a problem. Another court said it had the power to reconsider a decision during the same term it was made. Some cases and court documents were mentioned, and there were also discussions about preserving legal issues for review, and the possibility of getting in trouble for violating court rules. Finally, there was a suggestion that having more judges could help reduce these kinds of issues.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-conflict-pca-when-an-affirmance-without-opinion-conflicts-with-a-written-opinion/