Lee v. Office of the State Attorney — affirmed without a written opinion

Case
Curtis Lee v. Office of the State Attorney, Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida
Court
Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal
Judge
Makar; Harris; Kilbane
Date Decided
October 13, 2026
Docket No.
5D2025-2246
Topics
Appellate Procedure; Per Curiam Affirmance
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Curtis Lee appealed a decision of the Circuit Court for Duval County in his case against the Office of the State Attorney for Florida’s Fourth Judicial Circuit. Circuit Judge Kathryn Diane Weston presided over the lower-court proceeding.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal’s opinion does not describe the underlying dispute, the circuit court’s ruling, or the arguments raised on appeal.

The Court’s Holding

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s decision in a per curiam disposition.

The court provided no written reasoning and announced no legal rule beyond affirmance of the judgment under review. Judges Makar, Harris, and Kilbane concurred.

Key Takeaways

  • The circuit court’s decision was affirmed.
  • The appellate court issued a per curiam affirmance without explaining its reasoning.
  • The opinion does not disclose the underlying facts, issues presented, or legal analysis.

Why It Matters

The disposition leaves the circuit court’s ruling in place but supplies no written analysis for attorneys to apply in other cases. Its significance is therefore limited to the result of this appeal.

✉️ 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Your email address will not be published.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