Up to now Judge Per Curiam has carefully concealed his/her identity. But that does not seem to be true in Allen, No. 02-02-309-CR (9/02/04), where the following appears:
"PER CURIAM
PANEL F: DAUPHINOT, LIVINGSTON, and MCCOY, JJ.
LIVINGSTON, J. concurs without opinion
MCCOY, J. concurs without opinion"

In that situation, why is the opinion issued "per curiam"?

There is no standard for application of the rule. TRAP 47.2(a) merely states: " A majority of the justices who participate in considering the case must determine whether the opinion will be signed by a justice or will be per curiam." Of interest, its use does seem to be governed by tradition in certain courts. Per curiam opinions are favored in the First, Third, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh, Twelfth, and Fourteenth courts and rarely issued in the others. It would be interesting to learn more about the inner workings of the rule and why a judge would push for anonymity in any given case.

I remember some troubleseome pro se litigants who had hit on the strategy of filing motions to recuse every judge who ever touched their case. The court of appeals hearing multiple appeals of their case issued all its rulings "per curiam." The litigants could never figure out how to try to recuse judge "per curiam."