DODI PUB. CO. v. EDITORIAL AMERICA, S.A

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a petition filed by Dodi Publishing Company seeking review of a per curiam opinion issued by the Third District Court of Appeal. The appellate court had affirmed a lower court decision by citing the case Consolidated Electric Supply, Inc. v. Consolidated Electrical Distributors Southeast, Inc.. The petitioner contended that this cited precedent conflicted with a prior decision from another district court, Williamson v. Answer Phone of Jacksonville, thereby raising a question of conflict jurisdiction for the Florida Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal, which affirmed based on a cited precedent, expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or the Florida Supreme Court on the same question of law, thereby justifying review under section 3(b)(3) of article V of the Florida Constitution.
2. Whether the Florida Supreme Court should reexamine the cited precedent in the per curiam opinion to determine if it conflicts with other appellate decisions.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The petitioner argued that the case cited by the Third District Court of Appeal, Consolidated Electric Supply, Inc. v. Consolidated Electrical Distributors Southeast, Inc., conflicts with the earlier decision in Williamson v. Answer Phone of Jacksonville.
• Based on this asserted conflict, the petitioner contended that the Third District’s opinion itself conflicts with another Florida appellate decision, thus invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under the constitutional provision for conflict review.

Respondent’s Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Consolidated Electric Supply, Inc. v. Consolidated Electrical Distributors Southeast, Inc., 355 So.2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)	Authority for affirming the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision.	Used as the controlling precedent in affirming the case below; the Court declined to reexamine its validity for conflict purposes.
Williamson v. Answer Phone of Jacksonville, 118 So.2d 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)	Alleged conflicting precedent cited by petitioner to establish conflict jurisdiction.	The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the cited case conflicted with this precedent for purposes of conflict jurisdiction.
Jenkins v. State, 385 So.2d 1356 (Fla. June 26, 1980)	Explanation of the history and purpose of section 3(b)(3) of article V of the Florida Constitution.	Referenced to clarify the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction over conflict cases under the amended constitution.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court’s analysis focused on the proper scope of its conflict jurisdiction under the amended Florida Constitution. It emphasized that the issue before the Court was whether there was an express and direct conflict in the Third District Court of Appeal's decision itself, not whether the precedent cited by that court conflicted with other decisions. The Court rejected the petitioner’s invitation to reexamine the cited precedent for conflict, clarifying that conflict jurisdiction requires a direct conflict in the decision under review, not in a prior case cited therein. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction to review on conflict grounds.

Holding and Implications

The petition for review is dismissed.

The Court’s decision directly ends the review of the Third District Court of Appeal’s per curiam opinion, upholding its affirmation of the lower court decision. No new precedent was established, and the Court clarified that conflict jurisdiction does not extend to reexamining cited cases for conflict but is limited to conflicts appearing in the decision under review.