PIERRE SENEQUE, ET AL.
v.
FLORIDA PENINSULA INSURANCE COMPANY
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 issue must be presented to the lower court with the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal in order to be preserved for appellate review, and a conscious decision not to comply with legal requirements does not constitute excusable neglect.
“In order to be preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.”
Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985)
The case involves a dispute between Pierre Seneque and others against Florida Peninsula Insurance Company. The specifics of the underlying facts are n…
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 Excusable Neglect cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985) (“ In order to be preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.") and Peterson v. Lake Surprise II Condo. Assoc., 118 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“A conscious decision not to comply with the requirements of the law cannot be “excusable neglect” under the rule or any other equivalent requirement.").
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985)
- Peterson v. Lake Surprise II Condo. Assoc., 118 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)