Florida 1st DCA: Patterson v. Johnson Florida Appeal Issues Per Curiam Opinion

• Quentin Patterson appealed a case against Andrew Johnson and Johnson Enterprises & Consulting, LLC.
• The Florida First District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam decision on October 14, 2026.
• The appellate case, identified as 1D2025-1304, originated from the County Court for Leon County.
• Judge Stefanie Newlin presided over the initial proceedings in the Leon County Court.
• A per curiam decision means the court's ruling lacks detailed reasoning, limiting its precedential value.

For legal professionals, the lack of a full opinion text makes it challenging to discern any actionable insights or to understand the precise legal basis for the appellate court's ruling.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal recently rendered a decision in the case of Patterson v. Johnson, specifically involving appellant Quentin Patterson against appellees Andrew Johnson and Johnson Enterprises & Consulting, LLC. This appellate ruling, identified by case number 1D2025-1304, was handed down on October 14, 2026. The proceedings at the appellate level followed an appeal from the County Court for Leon County, where Judge Stefanie Newlin presided over the initial case.

A per curiam opinion, Latin for "by the court," signifies a decision delivered by the entire court, or a majority of the court, without a specific judge being identified as the author. In the context of Florida's appellate system, including the Florida First District Court of Appeal, these decisions are common for cases where the legal issues are deemed straightforward, or where the court finds no novel points of law requiring extensive discussion. They often serve to affirm or reverse a lower court's ruling without providing a detailed roadmap of the legal analysis undertaken.

In this instance, the Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed a matter that originated in the County Court for Leon County. The appellate process involves a higher court examining the record and legal arguments from a lower court to determine if any errors were made. While the specific nature of the original dispute heard by Judge Stefanie Newlin in Leon County is not detailed in the per curiam decision, the appellate court's action concludes the appeal phase for this particular case.

The issuance of a per curiam decision in Patterson v. Johnson carries significant implications for legal analysis and the broader understanding of the court's rationale. Because these opinions typically lack detailed reasoning, the specific legal principles applied, the factual findings that were critical to the outcome, or any new interpretations of existing law are not articulated. This absence of a comprehensive written opinion means that the decision offers limited insight into the court's thought process.

For legal professionals, the lack of a full opinion text makes it challenging to discern any actionable insights or to understand the precise legal basis for the appellate court's ruling. While the outcome of the appeal is clear—the court made a decision—the underlying justification remains opaque. Consequently, this particular ruling, while resolving the dispute between Quentin Patterson and Andrew Johnson, Johnson Enterprises & Consulting, LLC, provides minimal precedential value or guidance for future cases involving similar legal questions, as the specific grounds for the decision are not publicly elaborated.

This article provides only the case caption and a per curiam decision. Without the full opinion text, there are no discernible practical implications or actionable insights for lawyers or compliance officers.

Source: Original reporting via Florida appellate court records