For every scene, there is a sequel. In real life we can't avoid it: after an important event we always react internally in some way. That reaction may be prolonged or it may consume only a fraction of a second. The reaction may be pronounced, or it may be subtle. In fiction, our characters also react internally to an important event. Just because an internalization occurs, however, doesn't mean that we, as authors, must portray that reaction in writing. 

Skipping sequels is a common technique. In each of the novels I analyzed, the number of scenes far outnumbered the number of sequels shown. The most frequent variation regarding sequels is to not show the sequel. A sequel may be skipped simply by starting a new scene rather than showing the character's reflective reaction.  

Does this mean that sequels are unimportant? Not at all. Just because a carpenter doesn't use a hammer for every task doesn't mean the hammer isn't a valuable tool.  

Given the substantial advantages of writing sequels, why would we skip them? Reasons abound for hiding a sequel, and those reasons mirror the benefits of sequels: goals, characterization, exposition, summarization, transition, and reader involvement.  

The number one role of sequels is to justify the character's next move, his rationale for setting a new goal or new course. If the character's next move is obvious or if the new course can be justified in another way, then showing the character's decision-making process isn't necessary. The more linear the storyline, the less important it is to show a sequel. When action is fast paced, as in a sequence of scenes one right after another, or if the character is under intense time pressure, slowing things down to present a sequel could seem cumbersome, even absurd.  

Sequels offer an opportunity to develop character, to show your character's emotions, how he thinks, and how he makes a decision. But sequels are not the only means of developing character. As authors we have many tools for characterization, including action and dialogue. In some stories, such as in many thrillers, the main character needs to come across as cool and decisive, so spending a lot of time showing the character's emotions, his reasoning, and his decision-making process might be counterproductive. In a series of novels, the character's personality doesn't change much, if at all, from book to book, so the characterization benefits of sequels may not be needed, and may actually get in the way.

Sequels provide an opportunity to share information, but sequels are not the only place or means for exposition. Information may also be delivered through dialogue or expository devices. Information may be presented through the viewpoint character during a scene. Many of the novels I've analyzed simply presented information directly from the narrator as a passage of narrative-exposition.

Likewise for summarization. Sequels are a convenient mechanism for summarizing events, especially in the review phase, but summary can also be delivered directly from the narrator as a passage of narrative-summarization.  

Sequels can be an effective means of transition between scenes, but transition can be accomplished through many other means. Furthermore, when one scene follows another with little change in time, place, and viewpoint, then very little transition may be needed.  

Sequels provide an opportunity to enhance reader involvement, but so do scenes. Action and dialogue (the backbone of scenes) can generate lots of reader involvement.  

Your decision to write a sequel or to skip it can, and should be, dictated by the needs of the story. That decision also reflects your unique writing style. But your decision isn't limited to a simple choice of writing a sequel or not, because sequels may be presented with many other variations, each offering advantages.

I won't provide a specific example of a skipped sequel because they are quite common. Every novel I've analyzed had numerous examples of two or more sequential scenes without the presentation of an intervening sequel.