The Florida Star v. BJF, 530 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
The Florida Star v. BJF, 530 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
113 citation events (103 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Rene Woodall Lemos v. State of Florida (fladistctapp, 2026-03-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 43 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rene Woodall Lemos v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
“Subject matter jurisdiction” means “the ‘[p]ower of a particular court to hear the type of case that is then before it.’” Carbajal, 75 So. 3d at 262 (citing Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 767 (5th ed. 1979))).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anthony McMillian v. Ricky D. Dixon
N.D. Fla. · 2026 · confidence medium
That is, the opinion must contain a statement or citation effectively establishing a point of law upon which the decision rests.” The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988) (footnoted omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Subject matter jurisdiction is the "[p]ower of a particular court to hear the type of case that is then before it." The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Segwayne Kirk Anthony Goldson v. Ricky D. Dixon, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.D. Fla. · 2025 · confidence medium
That is, the opinion must contain a statement or citation effectively establishing a point of law upon which the decision rests. 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988) (footnoted omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Genna Brugal v. City of Naples
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
The Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Criner v. Secretary Florida Department Of Corrections (Duval County)
M.D. Fla. · 2025 · confidence medium
V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The Florida Supreme Court has interpreted this grant of discretionary subject matter jurisdiction broadly, holding it may review “any decision of a district court that expressly addresses a question of law within the four corners of the opinion itself.” Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wilfredo Pereira v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
11th Cir. · 2025 · confidence medium
The Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988); see Gandy, 846 So. 2d at 1143–44.
cited Cited as authority (rule) JONES v. DIXON
N.D. Fla. · 2024 · confidence medium
The Fla. Star, 530 So. 2d at 288 (footnote omitted) The First DCA’s written opinion in Jones’s direct appeal meets the above requirement.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Richard W. Higgins v. Citrus Hills Property Owners Association, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
“Subject-matter jurisdiction . . . is defined as: Power of a particular court to hear the type of case that is then before it . . . jurisdiction over the nature of the cause of action and relief sought. . . .” The Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988) (emphasis added) (quoting Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979))).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Craig Bernard Kerry v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
11th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Torres v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (Duval County) (3×) also: Cited "see"
M.D. Fla. · 2024 · confidence medium
The first is a general grant of discretionary subject-matter jurisdiction, and the second is a constitutional command as to how the discretion itself may be exercised.” Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) FRANKLIN E. TREADWAY v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Because Treadway included a "citation effectively establishing a point of law upon which the decision rest[ed]," The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988), and "the citation explicitly note[d] a contrary 1 See Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla. 1992). 2 holding of another district court," id. at 288 n.3, the supreme court had jurisdiction to address Treadway's request for discretionary review.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Honorable Rick Scott, individually and in etc. v. Donald Hinkle
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
Subject matter jurisdiction is the “[p]ower of a particular court to hear the type of case that is then before it” or “jurisdiction over the nature of the cause of action and relief sought.” Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 767 (5th ed. 1979)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lamancusa v. DOR
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
In re Adoption of D.P.P., 158 So. 3d 633, 636 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (citing Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ispass v. Ispass
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
“A court has subject matter jurisdiction when it has the authority to hear and decide the case.” In re Adoption of D.P.P, 158 So. 3d 633, 636 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (citing The Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kimberly Ann Miles v. Daniel Weingrad, M.D.
Fla. · 2015 · confidence medium
We do not have jurisdiction to review cases “that merely affirm with citations to cases not pending review in this Court[,]” id. at 1143 (quoting Persaud, 838 So. 2d at 531-32 ), and have not “expressly addressed a question of law within the four corners of the opinion itself [,]” id. at 1144 (quoting Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988)). - 17 - This well-established law is irreconcilably at odds with the majority’s decision to exercise jurisdiction here.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Adoption of D.P.P. v. C.P.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
The Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 530 So.2d 286, 288 (Fla.1988). “ ‘In this state, circuit courts are superior courts of general jurisdiction, and nothing is intended to be outside their jurisdiction except that which clearly and specially appears so to be.’” Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So.2d 850, 854 (Fla.1992) (quoting English v. McCrary, 348 So.2d 293, 297 (Fla.1977)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Arrington R. Wells v. State of Florida
Fla. · 2014 · confidence medium
We also take this opportunity to clarify our intention to apply the reasoning of Gandy v. State, 846 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2003), to unelaborated dismissals from the district courts of appeal that, like the First District’s decision in this case, merely cite to a case not pending review in, or not quashed or reversed by, this Court, or to a statute or rule of procedure, and do not contain any discussion of the facts in the case “such that it could be said that the district court ‘expressly addresse[d] a question of law within the four corners of the opinion itself.’ ” Id. at 1144 (quotin…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wells v. State
Fla. · 2014 · confidence medium
We also take this opportunity to clarify our intention to apply the reasoning of Gandy v. State, 846 So.2d 1141 (Fla.2003), to unelaborated dismissals from the district courts of appeal that, like the First District’s decision in this case, merely cite to a case not pending review in, or not quashed or reversed by, this Court, or to a statute or rule of procedure, and do not contain any discussion of the facts in the case “such that it could be said that the district court ‘expressly ad-dresse[d] a question of law within the four corners of the opinion itself.’ ” Id. at 1144 (quoting…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Polite v. State
Fla. · 2013 · confidence medium
V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const., requires that the “district court decision under review ‘must contain a statement or citation effectively establishing a point of law upon which the decision rests.’” Tippens v. State, 897 So.2d 1278, 1280 (Fla.2005) (quoting Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So.2d 286, 288 (Fla.1988)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carbajal v. State
Fla. · 2011 · confidence medium
Subject matter jurisdiction is the “[pjower of a particular court to hear the type of case that is then before it” or “jurisdiction over the nature of the cause of action and relief sought.” Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 530 So.2d 286, 288 (Fla.1988) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 767 (5th ed. 1979)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Bunkley v. State (3×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. · 2004 · confidence medium
Florida Star, 530 So.2d at 288-89 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hughes v. Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida
S.D. Fla. · 2003 · confidence medium
The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So.2d 286, 288 (Fla.1988). 6 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Property Management, Inc.
Fla. · 2003 · confidence medium
Our constitutional responsibility to resolve this interdistrict conflict, and ensure the consistent application of the law throughout this state, see Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So.2d 286, 288 (Fla.1988), dictates that we address the very real and direct conflict created by the Beacon court's pronouncement of a novel statutory interpretation that directly contravenes the interpretation undergirding numerous decisions in other districts.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Watkins v. GILBRIDE HELLER & BROWN, PA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
It includes not only its direct appeal jurisdiction (death sentence orders, district court decisions declaring a state statute invalid, etc.) but its discretionary jurisdiction, the vastness of which has been set out by the Florida Supreme Court itself in The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So.2d 286, 288 (Fla.1988): "This Court in the broadest sense has subject-matter jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution, over any decision of a district court that expressly addresses a question of law within the four corners of the opinion itself. [footnote omitted] That is, t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Florida Star v. B. J. F. (2×)
SCOTUS · 1989 · confidence medium
The State Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. 530 So. 2d 286, 287 (1988). [5] The somewhat uncharted state of the law in this area thus contrasts markedly with the well-mapped area of defamatory falsehoods, where a long line of decisions has produced relatively detailed legal standards governing the multifarious situations in which individuals aggrieved by the dissemination of damaging untruths seek redress.
discussed Cited "see" Robert Allan Cowan v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
M.D. Fla. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Florida Star, 530 So. 2d at 288 .
discussed Cited "see" Williams v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Hillsborough County)
M.D. Fla. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988) (answering certified question from the United States Supreme Court that Florida’s supreme court has subject-matter jurisdiction to review any decision of a district court of appeal that expressly addresses a question of law within the four corners of the opinion).
discussed Cited "see" Wilson v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Duval County) (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
M.D. Fla. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 288 .
discussed Cited "see" Mobley v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (Duval County)
M.D. Fla. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988) (holding that the Florida Supreme Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to review any decision of a district court of appeal “that expressly addresses a question of law within the four corners of the opinion itself,” even if the Florida Supreme Court ultimately denies a petition for discretionary review).
discussed Cited "see" BRAVO v. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
N.D. Fla. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See The Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988) (“[The Florida Supreme] Court in the broadest sense has subject-matter jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution, over any decision of a district court that expressly addresses a question of law within the four corners of the opinion itself.
discussed Cited "see" Vaughan v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (Duval County) (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
M.D. Fla. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 288 .
discussed Cited "see" Jimmy Lee Wheeler v. State of Florida
Fla. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stallworth v. Moore, 827 So. 2d 974, 978 (Fla. 2002) (“[T]his Court does not have discretionary review jurisdiction or extraordinary writ jurisdiction to review per curiam denials of relief, issued without opinion or explanation, whether they be in opinion form or by way of unpublished order.”). -2- 530 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1988), the Court considered the following question of Florida law certified by the United States Supreme Court: Whether the Florida Supreme Court had jurisdiction, pursuant to Article V, § 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution or otherwise, to hear Appellant’s appeal […
discussed Cited "see" American Wall Systems v. Madison Intern.
Fla. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So.2d 286, 288 (Fla.1988) (concluding that our "final and inherent power to determine what constitutes express and direct conflict" gives us subject-matter jurisdiction to consider petitions for review in any case that "hypothetically could create conflict").
cited Cited "see" Tippens v. State
Fla. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Florida Star II, 530 So.2d at 288 . 4.
cited Cited "see" Bell v. Kornblatt
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So.2d 286, 288 (Fla.1988); Lovett v. Lovett, 93 Fla. 611 , 112 So. 768, 775 (1927).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Oliver v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Duval County)
M.D. Fla. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
App. P. 9.120(b); see also Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1988) (holding that the Florida Supreme Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to review any decision of a district court of appeal that expressly addresses a question of law within the four corners of the opinion, even if the Florida Supreme Court ultimately denies a petition for discretionary review).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Smith v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (Duval County)
M.D. Fla. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 , 137 (2012) (“We hold that, for a state prisoner who does not seek review in a State’s highest court, the judgment becomes ‘final’ on the date that the time for seeking such review expires.”); see also Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1988) (holding that the Florida Supreme Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to review any decision of a district court of appeal that expressly addresses a question of law within the four corners of the opinion, even if the Florida Supreme Court ultimately denies a petition for discretionary review).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." LE BOSS v. DIXON
N.D. Fla. · 2025 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
App. P. 9.120(b) (“The jurisdiction of the supreme court shall be invoked by filing a notice . . . within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.”); see, e.g., The Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988) (explaining that Florida Supreme Court “in the broadest sense has subject-matter jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution, over any decision of a district court that expressly addresses a question of law within the four corners of the opinion itself”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." AZRAN MIAMI 2 LLC v. US BANK TRUST, N.A., etc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286 , 289 n. 3 (Fla. 1988) (discussing the contours of conflict jurisdiction, observing “there can be no actual conflict discernible in an opinion containing only a citation to other case law unless one of the cases cited as controlling authority is pending before this Court, or has been reversed on appeal or review, or receded from by this Court, or unless the citation explicitly notes a contrary holding of another district court or of this Court.”) (citing Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla. 1981)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Mullins v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
As the Florida Supreme Court explained in Persaud , it has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a petition for discretionary review based on an appellate court's per curiam opinion with citations, where one of those authorities is pending review in that Court. [2] Persaud, 838 So.2d at 531-32 ; see also, Florida Star, 530 So.2d at 288 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." First Union National Bank v. Turney
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare Beaty v. State, 701 So.2d 856, 857 (Fla.1997), with The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So.2d 286, 288 (Fla.1988) (holding that the Florida Supreme "Court has the final and inherent power to determine what constitutes express *770 and direct conflict").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Shannon v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So.2d 286 , 288 n. 3 (Fla.1988)("a district court decision rendered without opinion or citation constitutes a decision from the highest state court empowered to hear the cause, and appeal may be taken directly to the United States Supreme Court").
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
THE FLORIDA STAR, Appellant,
v.
B.J.F., Appellee.
71615.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sep 1, 1988.
530 So. 2d 286
Barkett.
Cited by 50 opinions  |  Published

[*287] George K. Rahdert and Bonita M. Riggens of Rahdert, Acosta & Dickson, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Joel D. Eaton of Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin, P.A., Miami, and Beckham, McAliley & Schulz, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellee.

Alan C. Sundberg of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith, Cutler & Kent, Tallahassee, Gerald B. Cope, Jr. and Laura Besvinick of Greer, Homer, Cope & Bonner, P.A., Miami, Richard J. Ovelmen, General Counsel, The Miami Herald Pub. Co., Miami, Paul J. Levine of Spence, Payne, Masington, Grossman & Needle, Miami, Florida; and Sanford L. Bohrer of Thomson, Zeder, Bohrer, Werth & Razook, Miami, Florida, amici curiae for The Miami Herald Pub. Co., The Florida First Amendment Foundation, The Florida Press Ass'n, and The Florida Soc. of Newspaper Editors.

BARKETT, Justice.

This case is before us on the following question of Florida law certified by the United States Supreme Court:

Whether the Florida Supreme Court had jurisdiction, pursuant to Article V, § 3(b)(3)[1] of the Florida Constitution or otherwise, to hear Appellant's appeal [petition for review] in this cause from the Florida First District Court of Appeal?

The Florida Star v. B.J.F., ___ U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 499, 499, 98 L.Ed.2d 498 (1987). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(6), Fla. Const. As delimited by this opinion, we answer in the affirmative.

The Florida Star, a Jacksonville newspaper, published the name of a rape victim that police erroneously had included in material released to the press pretrial. There is no dispute that the name should not have been released and that the newspaper itself had a policy against the publication of rape victims' names. Publication appeared to be a criminal violation under section 794.03, Florida Statutes (1985).[2]

B.J.F., the rape victim, brought a civil action premised on a statutory duty arising from section 794.03. The Florida Star moved for dismissal based on the ground that the theory of recovery violated the first and fourteenth amendments. In denying this motion, the trial court ruled that no such violation would occur, and it specifically upheld the constitutionality of section 794.03.

On appeal, the Florida Star again challenged the constitutionality of the statute. The district court affirmed but did not discuss section 794.03 except to quote it verbatim, nor did it expressly uphold the statute against appellant's constitutional challenge.

The Florida Star subsequently filed a jurisdictional brief with this Court, seeking discretionary review. Review summarily was denied. The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 509 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 1987).

On August 26, 1987, the Florida Star sought review in the United States Supreme Court. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss on grounds the appeal was untimely. Appellee argued that the Florida Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to review the case, and that the opinion of the First District thus was the final decision of the highest state court empowered to hear the cause. Under this argument, the Florida[*288] Star should have appealed to the United States Supreme Court within ninety days of the First District's opinion. The United States Supreme Court then certified the instant question to this Court.

We do not read the question presented by the Supreme Court as a request to explain the internal mechanism of the court or to attempt the impossible task of second-guessing the original panel's decision on jurisdiction. Nor do we believe, as appellee suggests, that the present court should reexamine the question and decide anew whether conflict existed.

Instead, we limit our answer to the context in which the question was posed. For that sole purpose, we answer the question in the affirmative. This Court in the broadest sense has subject-matter jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution, over any decision of a district court that expressly addresses a question of law within the four corners of the opinion itself.[3] That is, the opinion must contain a statement or citation effectively establishing a point of law upon which the decision rests. The opinion in B.J.F. unquestionably met this requirement.

We premise our holding on our conclusion that article V, section 3(b)(3) creates and defines two separate concepts. The first is a general grant of discretionary subject-matter jurisdiction, and the second is a constitutional command as to how the discretion itself may be exercised. In effect, the second is a limiting principle dictated to this Court by the people of Florida. While our subject-matter jurisdiction in conflict cases necessarily is very broad, our discretion to exercise it is more narrowly circumscribed by what the people have commanded:

(b) JURISDICTION. — The supreme court:
... .
(3) May review any decision of a district court of appeal ... that expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same question of law.

Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

Thus, it is not necessary that conflict actually exist for this Court to possess subject-matter jurisdiction, only that there be some statement or citation in the opinion that hypothetically could create conflict if there were another opinion reaching a contrary result. This is the only reasonable interpretation of this constitutional provision. As the final authority on the meaning of the Florida Constitution, see Art. IV, § 1(c), and Art. V, § 3(b)(1), (3), Fla. Const., this Court has the final and inherent power to determine what constitutes express and direct conflict. No other authority exists, except the people pursuant to their power to amend the constitution, that may nullify this Court's pronouncements on that question.

This, by definition, is discretion, not jurisdiction. As noted in Black's Law Dictionary 419 (5th ed. 1979), discretion is

the exercise of judicial judgment, based on facts and guided by law... . It is a legal discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by law and is not to give effect to the will of the judge, but to that of the law.

Subject-matter jurisdiction, on the other hand, is defined as:

Power of a particular court to hear the type of case that is then before it... . jurisdiction over the nature of the cause of action and relief sought....

Id. at 767. While this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear any petition arising[*289] from an opinion that establishes a point of law, we have operated within the intent of the constitution's framers, as we perceive it, in refusing to exercise our discretion where the opinion below establishes no point of law contrary to a decision of this Court or another district court.

We thus conclude that we had complete subject-matter jurisdiction to hear B.J.F. and decide the case on its merits with finality. This jurisdiction must be regarded as complete until the time the petition for review was denied. Moreover, the denial of review in B.J.F. did not operate to deprive this Court of its subject-matter jurisdiction retroactively, but merely constituted the point in time at which jurisdiction, for whatever reason, had ended.

We confess that we are much influenced in this holding by the procedural quagmire that would result from a negative answer. To seek review of a state court judgment in the United States Supreme Court, a litigant first must exhaust all avenues of review available in the courts of the state. The fact that review in the highest court is discretionary is irrelevant; the litigant still must seek such review in order to proceed to the United States Supreme Court. American Ry. Express v. Levee, 263 U.S. 19, 20-21, 44 S.Ct. 11, 12-13, 68 L.Ed. 140 (1923); Stratton v. Stratton, 239 U.S. 55, 56-57, 36 S.Ct. 26, 27, 60 L.Ed. 142 (1915).

It is therefore essential to the preservation of a litigant's right to United States Supreme Court review that he or she know with certainty the avenues of appellate review required by the courts of the state. If, after the fact, we held in a case such as this that there was no jurisdiction, litigants would be placed in a needlessly burdensome position. A party would have to try to predict which court ultimately would recognize jurisdiction in the case and file a petition for review accordingly. A party who files only in the United States Supreme Court, however, would risk the objection that he or she has not exhausted state court remedies. On the other hand, a party who files only in the Florida Supreme Court and is denied review, would risk the objection made by B.J.F. here that the later appeal to the United States Supreme Court is untimely.

Alternatively, a party could file a petition for review in both the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court simultaneously, simply to protect his or her rights. This solution would entail double work, separate briefs, and much more expense for the clients. Moreover, a stay would likely need to be sought in the United States Supreme Court because the appeal in that Court would not be ripe for review unless and until this Court denied review or otherwise disposed of the case. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that, on some occasions, this Court agrees to review a case on the merits, but after briefing or argument determines that review was improvidently granted.

No purpose is served by this duplication of effort, added expense and uncertainty. We do not believe the people intended such a result when they amended the constitution in 1980.

For the foregoing reasons, we answer the certified question in the affirmative. This opinion shall be transmitted forthwith to the United States Supreme Court.

It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

1 This section vests the Florida Supreme Court with subject-matter jurisdiction over cases that manifest express and direct conflict with opinions of another district court or of this Court. For convenience, this type of jurisdiction usually is called "conflict jurisdiction."
2 The statute states:

No person shall print, publish, or broadcast, or cause or allow to be printed, published, or broadcast, in any instrument of mass communication the name, address, or other identifying fact or information of the victim of any sexual offense within this chapter. An offense under this section shall constitute a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

3 This Court does not, however, have subject-matter jurisdiction over a district court opinion that fails to expressly address a question of law, such as opinions issued without opinion or citation. Thus, a district court decision rendered without opinion or citation constitutes a decision from the highest state court empowered to hear the cause, and appeal may be taken directly to the United States Supreme Court. Moreover, there can be no actual conflict discernible in an opinion containing only a citation to other case law unless one of the cases cited as controlling authority is pending before this Court, or has been reversed on appeal or review, or receded from by this Court, or unless the citation explicitly notes a contrary holding of another district court or of this Court. See Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418, 420 (Fla. 1981).