AVI HAREL
v.
KABEL- X USA, LLC
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.
An appellant cannot discharge its appellate duty by merely posing questions with assertions of improper answers below without substantive legal argument, and issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
[1] An appellant must present substantive legal arguments on appeal rather than merely posing questions and asserting they were improperly answered in the trial court.
[2] Issues not raised or presented in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal and are precluded from appellate review.
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“An appellant does not discharge [its] duty by merely posing a question with an accompanying assertion that it was improperly answered in the court below and then dumping the matter into the lap of the appellate court for decision.”
Court explaining the standard for appellate presentations
Avi Harel appealed a judgment from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County in a case against Kabel-X USA, LLC. The appeal involved contract or commerc…
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 Raising Issues For The First Time On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed January 2, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0297 Lower Tribunal No. 19-22438
________________
Avi Harel,
Appellant,
vs.
Kabel-X USA, LLC, et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge. Avi Harel, in proper person. Berger Singerman LLP, and Alejandro M. Miyar and Ana E. Kauffmann, for appellees. Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Spanakos v. Hawk Sys., Inc., 362 So. 3d 226, 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (“An appellant does not discharge [its] duty by merely posing a question with an accompanying assertion that it was improperly answered in the court below and then dumping the matter into the lap of the appellate court for decision. Under such circumstances it must be held . . . that [the appellate court is] under no duty to answer the question.” (quoting Lynn v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 81 So. 2d 511, 513 (Fla. 1955))); Est. of Herrera v. Berlo Indus., Inc., 840 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“[Appellant] seeks to raise issues which were not raised in the trial court. However, issues not presented in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Thus, [appellant] is precluded from raising new arguments on appeal.” (citation omitted)); see also K.R. Exch. Servs., Inc. v. Fuerst, Humphrey, Ittleman, PL, 48 So. 3d 889, 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“It is well settled that the court must consider an exhibit attached to the complaint together with the complaint’s allegations, and that the exhibit controls when its language is inconsistent with the complaint’s allegations.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Omosa A. Ade v. Pub. Health Tr. of Miami-Dade Cnty. (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)…PER CURIAM. [*2] Affirmed. See Est. of Herrera v. Berlo Indus., Inc., 840 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“Summary judgment may be granted, even though discovery has not been completed, when the future discovery will not create a disputed issue of material fact."); Gidwani v. Roberts, 248 So. 3d 203, 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“A p…
Authorities Cited
- Lynn v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 81 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 1955)
- In re the Est. OF Carlos Rumaldo Herrera v. Berlo Indus. Inc., 840 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- K.R. Exch. Servs., Inc. v. Fuerst, Humphrey, Ittleman, PL, 48 So. 3d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Spanakos v. Hawk Sys., Inc., 362 So. 3d 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)