BLNK HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL.,
v.
MARK HERSKOWITZ,
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Arguments not specifically asserted as legal grounds for objections, exceptions, or motions below are waived on appeal unless they constitute fundamental error, and evidentiary errors regarding deposition testimony do not qualify as fundamental error.
[1] Arguments not specifically asserted as legal grounds for objections, exceptions, or motions in the trial court are waived on appeal unless they constitute fundamental err…
[2] Evidentiary errors regarding the admission or exclusion of deposition testimony do not constitute fundamental error because such errors do not go to the heart or foundati…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.”
Court explaining the requirement for preserving arguments for appeal
BLNK Holdings, LLC and others appealed a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County. The appeal involved challenges to the trial cou…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Preservation Of Arguments For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 15, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D21-1098 Lower Tribunal No. 21-4452 ________________ BLNK Holdings, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. Mark Herskowitz, Appellee. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge. Bales Sommers & Klein, P.A., and Richard M. Bales, Jr. and Jason Klein, for appellants. Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, and Franklin L. Zemel and Alan R. Poppe and Ariel R. Deray (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and EMAS and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2 Affirmed. See Aills v. Boemi, 29 So. 3d 1105, 1108 (Fla. 2010) (explaining that “[i]n order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below” (citation omitted)). See also Fleischer v. Fleischer, 586 So. 2d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (“The only exception to the raise-it-or-waive-it rule is for fundamental error. ‘Fundamental’ error, in this sense, refers to error that goes to the very heart of the judicial process, not to mistakes as to which arguably correct law or rule to apply, or as to the application of such a rule of law to the facts in the case.”); Marks v. Delcastillo, 386 So. 2d 1259, 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (explaining that the fundamental error exception does not apply where a party challenges a court’s admission of or failure to admit deposition testimony since an alleged evidentiary error of this kind does not go to the heart or foundation of the case).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Aills v. Luciano Boemi, M.D., 29 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 2010)
- Marks v. Delcastillo, 386 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Fleischer v. Ivy Faske Fleischer, 586 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)