Sanderson v. Karch

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sanderson v. Karch

257 So. 3d 1091

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 21, 2018·No. No. 4D18-1695·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

Pincite

257 So. 3d 1091 (Sanderson v. Karch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related