was accompanied by citations to cases, one of which was pending review in the Florida Supreme Court. Mullins asserts that when the Florida Supreme Court dismissed his case on November 24, 2004, Mullins had two years from that date to seek postcon- vietion relief, and his July 10, 2006 petition for postconvietion relief was therefore timely t to accept jurisdiction of Mullins’ case and dismissed Mullins’ petition for discretionary review. 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. Persaud, 838 So.2d at 531-32; see also, Florida Star, 530 So.2d at 288. Jur DCA 1987)
holding that the court of appeals in applying state law on appeal of a diversity action must apply law of the state as it existed at the time of its decision rather than as it stood at the time the case was decided in district court holding that the court had appellate jurisdiction to review the merits of the case because only the collateral issue of attorneys fees remained to be decided on remand to the bankruptcy court holding that a circuit court has no jurisdiction to review a district courts discretionary decision not to depart downward from the guidelines but would have jurisdiction if the district court based its decision on the belief that it did not have the authority to depart holding that because a claim was never raised in the district court this court would not consider it for the first time on appeal holding that the court should not have chosen to accept jurisdiction to review the per curiam opinion as it was it was decided on the authority of another decision that was never reviewed by the court on the merits