Baggett v. Potter — affirmed the trial court without a written opinion

Case
Ruby Baggett v. Thomas M. “Mitch” Potter, Allied Veterinary Emergency Hospital, Owner and Registered Agent, Shanell Turner, Allied Veterinary Emergency Hospital, Hospital Manager, Canopy Cremation a/k/a Allied Cremation, Thomas M. Potter, Registered Agent
Court
Florida First District Court of Appeal
Judge
ROBERTS (Charlie Crist, 2007); NORDBY (Ron DeSantis, 2019)
Date Decided
August 5, 2026
Docket No.
1D2026-0141
Topics
Appeals, Per Curiam Affirmance, Veterinary Services
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Ruby Baggett appealed from a judgment or order of the Circuit Court for Leon County, where Judge Angela Dempsey presided. The appellees included Thomas M. “Mitch” Potter, Allied Veterinary Emergency Hospital, hospital manager Shanell Turner, and Canopy Cremation, also identified as Allied Cremation.

The First District’s opinion does not describe the underlying dispute, the claims asserted, the trial court’s ruling, or Baggett’s appellate arguments. Baggett represented herself on appeal, while counsel represented Potter, Canopy Cremation, and Turner.

The Court’s Holding

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The court issued a per curiam affirmance consisting only of the word “AFFIRMED.”

Because the court provided no reasoning, the opinion establishes only that the challenged trial-court disposition remains in place. It does not identify which arguments the court accepted or rejected and does not announce a rule of law.

Key Takeaways

  • The First District affirmed the Leon County Circuit Court’s decision.
  • The decision was unanimous among Judges Roberts, Nordby, and Neff.
  • The court supplied no factual discussion, legal analysis, or explanation for the affirmance.

Why It Matters

The ruling ends the appeal in the appellees’ favor unless altered through an authorized and timely post-decision motion. Its practical effect is to leave the trial court’s disposition intact.

Because this is an unexplained per curiam affirmance, attorneys should not treat it as guidance on the merits of the underlying dispute or as an articulation of a broader legal standard.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top