Ozomaro — Florida appellate court affirmed the judgment for Fields Cadillac without a written opinion

Case
Menyon Ozomaro v. Fields Cadillac Jacksonville
Court
Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal
Judge
Lambert, J. (Rick Scott, 2014); Soud, J. (Ron DeSantis, 2022); Kilbane, J. (Ron DeSantis, 2022)
Date Decided
September 15, 2026
Docket No.
5D2025-3547
Topics
Appeals; Per Curiam Affirmance; Florida Courts
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Menyon Ozomaro appealed from a decision of the County Court for Duval County in litigation involving Fields Cadillac Jacksonville. County Judge Robin E. Lanigan presided over the lower-court proceeding, which carried case number 2025-CC-012017-A.

Ozomaro represented himself on appeal. Fields Cadillac was represented by counsel. The appellate court’s brief opinion does not describe the underlying dispute, the county court’s ruling, the issues raised on appeal, or the parties’ arguments.

The Court’s Holding

The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the county court’s decision. Judges Lambert, Soud, and Kilbane concurred in the per curiam disposition.

Because the court issued only a per curiam affirmance and provided no analysis, the opinion states no legal rationale and resolves no identified issue in a written holding beyond leaving the lower court’s judgment in place. The disposition was designated nonfinal until resolution of any timely and authorized motion under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fifth District affirmed the Duval County Court’s decision.
  • The court provided no factual discussion or legal reasoning for its ruling.
  • The opinion does not identify the appellate issues or establish an articulated rule of law.

Why It Matters

The decision ends the appeal in Fields Cadillac’s favor unless further proceedings permitted by the cited appellate rules alter the result. Its practical effect is to leave the county court’s judgment undisturbed.

Because the court did not explain its reasoning, the opinion offers attorneys no substantive guidance about the underlying dispute or the legal grounds supporting affirmance.

✉️ 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Your email address will not be published.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