Sminkey — Fifth District affirmed without a written opinion

Case
Jack Sminkey v. Daniel Reynolds
Court
Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal
Judge
MAKAR (Ron DeSantis, 2023); HARRIS (Rick Scott, 2018)
Date Decided
August 11, 2026
Docket No.
5D2025-2804
Topics
Appellate Procedure; Per Curiam Affirmance
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Jack Sminkey appealed an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County in litigation against Daniel Reynolds. Circuit Judge Robin E. Lanigan presided over the lower-court matter.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal’s opinion does not describe the underlying facts, identify the order being challenged, state the arguments raised on appeal, or specify the legal issues presented.

The Court’s Holding

The Fifth District affirmed the circuit court’s decision in a per curiam opinion.

The court provided no written reasoning or discussion of the merits. Judges MAKAR, HARRIS, and KILBANE concurred.

Key Takeaways

  • The circuit court’s ruling remains in effect because the Fifth District affirmed it.
  • The appellate court issued a per curiam affirmance without explaining its reasoning.
  • The opinion does not disclose the case’s underlying facts, legal issues, or the basis for affirmance.

Why It Matters

The decision resolves this appeal in Reynolds’s favor but supplies no substantive analysis for attorneys to apply in other cases. Its significance is therefore principally procedural and limited to the affirmance of the lower court’s ruling.

✉️ 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Your email address will not be published.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