Pugh v. Johnson — Florida First DCA affirms trial court in per curiam opinion without written reasoning

Case
James E. Pugh and Heather H. Pugh v. Mary W. Johnson, an Individual, and James F. Johnson, an Individual
Court
Florida First District Court of Appeal
Date Decided
June 10, 2026
Docket No.
1D2025-0170 (companion: 1D2025-0172)
Topics
Per curiam affirmance, Civil appeal, Okaloosa County

Background

James E. Pugh and Heather H. Pugh appealed a judgment of the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County, Judge John T. Brown presiding. The appeal was consolidated with a companion case, No. 1D2025-0172, in which the same appellants challenged a ruling involving Jeanne S. Martin, as Trustee of the Jeanne S. Martin Trust Dated March 5, 2001.

The nature of the underlying dispute — the claims asserted, the relief sought, and the specific rulings challenged on appeal — is not disclosed in the appellate court’s opinion, which consists solely of a per curiam affirmance.

The Court’s Holding

The First District Court of Appeal, in a per curiam opinion joined by Judges Ray, Nordby, and Long, affirmed the trial court’s judgment in both consolidated cases without written explanation. The court issued no opinion elaborating on the legal issues raised or the reasoning supporting affirmance.

The decision is not yet final pending disposition of any timely motion for rehearing or certification under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

Key Takeaways

  • The First District affirmed the Okaloosa County Circuit Court’s ruling against the Pughs in both consolidated appeals.
  • The court issued no written opinion, so the legal reasoning and underlying facts are not part of the public appellate record from this decision.
  • The opinion is not yet final and may be subject to further motions for rehearing.

Why It Matters

Per curiam affirmances without written opinion are a routine but significant feature of Florida appellate practice — they signal that the panel found no reversible error warranting discussion, but they carry no precedential value and provide no guidance on the legal questions raised. Practitioners in the First District should note that such dispositions cannot be cited as authority.

Because the underlying facts and issues are not disclosed in the opinion text, attorneys should consult the trial court record in Okaloosa County for the substance of the dispute between the Pughs, the Johnsons, and the Martin Trust.

Leave a Comment

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

Scroll to Top