AMTEL GROUP BANGKOK CO., LTD., A FOREIGN CORPORATE ENTITY, AMTEL GROUP OF FLORIDA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AMTEL FARM, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND CHAI THANGSUMPHANT, AN INDIVIDUAL, APPELLANTS,
v.
SUWALEE THANGSUMPHANT, CHAVANUCH THANGSUMPHANT, AND SUNEE SAE-NGOW, APPELLEES

Fla. 2d DCA | 2005-04-08
No. 2D04-4128
NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
897 So. 2d 558 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2005) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Opinion of the Court
VILLANTI, Judge.

VILLANTI, Judge.

We treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and deny the petition. See Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1996); Mendes v. Dowelanco Indus. LTDA, 651 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

Denied.

NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Martinez v. Rodriguez, 927 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
    …osts and the trial court erred in adopting the hearing officer’s recommendation in that regard, because he did not consent to the hearing officer’s consideration of the issue. While there is support for the Father’s position, see Ferencz v. Ferencz, 897 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Oliveri v. Oliveri, 541 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), we need not decide that issue, as we conclude that the Father waived any objection to the hearing officer’s consideration of the matter by failing to object when it was addr…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw