Hicks v. Florida Communication Contractors — Affirmed the trial court without a written opinion

Case
Christine Hicks, individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Timothy Hicks, Sherry Irwin, individually, Maurice Lancaster, individually, and Florida Communication Concepts, Inc. v. Florida Communication Contractors, LLC, D.B.E. Management, Inc., d/b/a DBE Utility Services, and Dustin Ertle, individually
Court
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
Judge
Gross (Lawton Chiles, 1995); LEVINE (Charlie Crist, 2009)
Date Decided
July 30, 2026
Docket No.
4D2025-1018
Topics
Per Curiam Affirmance; Civil Appeal
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Christine Hicks, individually and as personal representative of Timothy Hicks’s estate, Sherry Irwin, Maurice Lancaster, and Florida Communication Concepts, Inc. appealed from a decision of the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County. Circuit Judge Gregory Miller Keyser presided over the lower-court case.

The appellees were Florida Communication Contractors, LLC, D.B.E. Management, Inc., doing business as DBE Utility Services, and Dustin Ertle. The appellate court’s opinion does not describe the underlying dispute, the trial court’s ruling, or the arguments raised on appeal.

The Court’s Holding

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

The court provided no explanation for its ruling and announced no express rule of law. Judges Gross, Levine, and Forst concurred.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fourth District affirmed the judgment or order under review.
  • The decision was issued per curiam without a written explanation.
  • The opinion supplies no facts, legal analysis, or express precedent on the merits of the dispute.

Why It Matters

The ruling leaves the circuit court’s decision in place, but its practical significance beyond the parties is limited because the appellate court did not explain its reasoning. The opinion was not final until disposition of any timely filed motion for rehearing.

✉️ 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Your email address will not be published.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