Pace v. Designer Dental — Sixth District affirmed the county court’s judgment without a written opinion

Case
Corine Pace v. Designer Dental
Court
Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal
Judge
NARDELLA (Ron DeSantis, 2023); GANNAM (Ron DeSantis, 2023)
Date Decided
August 11, 2026
Docket No.
6D2025-1444
Topics
Appellate Procedure, County Court, Summary Affirmance
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Corine Pace appealed from a decision of the County Court for Highlands County in a case involving Designer Dental. County Judge Anthony L. Ritenour presided over the lower-court matter, which was docketed as No. 2024-SC-000832.

Pace represented herself on appeal. Designer Dental made no appearance. The appellate opinion does not describe the parties’ dispute, the county court’s ruling, the arguments on appeal, or the relevant facts.

The Court’s Holding

The Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the county court’s judgment.

The court issued a per curiam decision consisting only of the word “AFFIRMED” and provided no legal analysis or explanation. Judges Nardella, Gannam, and Kamoutsas concurred.

Key Takeaways

  • The county court’s judgment remains in place.
  • The Sixth District gave no explanation for its affirmance.
  • The opinion establishes no stated rule of law and does not disclose the underlying facts or appellate issues.

Why It Matters

Because the court affirmed without a written explanation, the decision resolves this appeal but offers no reasoning for attorneys to apply in other cases. Its practical effect is limited to leaving the lower court’s judgment undisturbed, subject to the stated rehearing period.

✉️ 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Your email address will not be published.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