Sanderson v. Karch

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sanderson v. Karch

257 So. 3d 1091

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 21, 2018

DocketNo. 4D18-1695

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 257 So. 3d 1091 (Sanderson v. Karch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sanderson v. Karch, 257 So. 3d 1091 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Affirmed. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Ribaudo , 199 So.3d 407, 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (holding that the court's "clear errors" in failing to consider relevant factors before striking a witness and failing to consider the Kozel factors before dismissing a complaint as discovery sanctions could not be reviewed on appeal in light of sanctioned party's failure to "raise either of these issues at the hearing on the motion to dismiss or by subsequently filing a motion for rehearing or reconsideration").

Gross, Damoorgian and Ciklin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Affirmed. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Ribaudo , 199 So.3d 407, 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (holding that the court's "clear errors" in failing to consider relevant factors before striking a witness and failing to consider the Kozel factors before dismissing a complaint as discovery sanctions could not be reviewed on appeal in light of sanctioned party's failure to "raise either of these issues at the hearing on the motion to dismiss or by subsequently filing a motion for rehearing or reconsideration").

Gross, Damoorgian and Ciklin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 So. 3d 1091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanderson-v-karch-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack