JOHN GWYNN
v.
ROBERT C. JOHNSON AND THE LAW FIRM OF PIKE & LUSTIG, LLP
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration or rehearing that raises an issue which could have been, but was not, raised in the initial motion or hearing.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration or rehearing that raises an issue which could have been raised in the initial motion o…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Gwynn appealed from a circuit court decision in Palm Beach County involving Robert C. Johnson and The Law Firm of Pike & Lustig, LLP.…
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 Motion For Reconsideration cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
JOHN D. GWYNN, Appellant,
V.
ROBERT C. JOHNSON and THE LAW FIRM OF PIKE & LUSTIG, LLP, Appellees.
No. 4D2025-3211
[September 30, 2026]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; G. Joseph Curley, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502024CA000061XXXAMB.
Erin Pogue Newell of Open Book Appeals, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Robert C. Johnson of Pike & Lustig, LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See, inter alia, Chris Thompson, P.A. v. GEICO Indem. Co., 349 So. 3d 447, 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (“A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration or rehearing which raises an issue that could have [been], but wasn't, raised in the initial motion or at the initial hearing.” (quoting Bank of Am., N.A. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 338 So. 3d 338, 341 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022))).
LEVINE, KLINGENSMITH and LOTT, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.