CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., AND FANE LOZMAN, PETITIONERS,
v.
CITY OF NORTH BAY VILLAGE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND CASA MARINA DEVELOPMENT, LLC, RESPONDENTS
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.
Clear Channel Communications and Fane Lozman sought certiorari review of a circuit court decision upholding a City of North Bay Village resolution. The appellate court denied the petition, finding that petitioners failed to preserve legal challenges through proper objections and that competent substantial evidence supported the city's decision.
Petitioners failed to preserve their legal challenges because witness questioning without proper formal objections is insufficient to preserve issues for appellate review. The circuit court correctly applied the law in finding that the city commission's decision was supported by competent substantial evidence.
[1] A party must make objections with sufficient specificity to apprise the court of the potential error and preserve the issue for appellate review; general objections are i…
[2] The purpose of requiring a contemporaneous objection is to notify the court of a potential error, allow for correction, and prevent tactical withholding of challenges.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Appellate review is confined to issues decided adversely to appellant's position, or issues that were preserved with a sufficiently specific objection below.”
Establishes the requirement that legal issues must be preserved through proper objections, not merely through questioning.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners Clear Channel Communications and Fane Lozman challenged a City of North Bay Village resolution before the circuit court. Petitioners quest…
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 Second Tier Certiorari Review cases and more on FLexlaw
CORTINAS, Judge.
Petitioners, Clear Channel Communications, Inc. and Fane Lozman, seek a writ of certiorari to quash the circuit court’s June 15, 2005 opinion, which held that petitioners failed to preserve their legal challenges for appellate review and found that there was no departure from the essential requirements of the law as the record was replete with competent substantial evidence to support the City of North Bay Village’s (“city”) resolution. We deny the petition.
On second-tier certiorari review, our review is limited to whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process and applied the correct law. Miami-Dade County v. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., 863 So. 2d 195 (Fla.2003)(citing Broward County v. G.B.V. Int’l, Ltd., 787 So. 2d 838 (Fla.2001)).
Petitioners contend that the circuit court misapplied the law in holding that petitioners failed to preserve legal challenges for appellate review by not filing proper objections before the city commission. Specifically, petitioners contend that their questioning of a witness during a city commission hearing was sufficient to preserve purported legal errors for appeal. We find that the circuit court did not misapply the law in holding that the questioning of a witness was insufficient to preserve an issue for appellate review.
Appellate review is confined to issues decided adversely to appellant’s po sition, or issues that were preserved with a sufficiently specific objection below. Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639, 642 (Fla.1982)(holding that objections must be made with sufficient specificity to apprise the trial court of the potential error and to preserve the point for appellate review; general objections are insufficient); State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7, 9 (Fla.1974)(holding that “[a]n appellate court must confine itself to a review of only those questions which were before the trial court and upon which a ruling adverse to the appealing party was made”); Leonard v. State, 423 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Moore v. State, 418 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Snead v. State, 415 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The purpose for requiring a contemporaneous objection is to put the trial judge on notice of a possible error, to afford an opportunity to correct the error early in the proceedings, and to prevent a litigant from not challenging an error so that he or she may later use it for tactical advantage. Fittipaldi USA, Inc. v. Castroneves, 905 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Crumbley v. State, 876 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Fincke v. Peeples, 476 So. 2d 1319, 1322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
Petitioners next contend that the record evidence shows that the city’s decision to approve its resolution was not based upon competent substantial evidence. In its appellate capacity, the circuit court disagreed with petitioners and held that the city commission’s approval was based upon competent substantial evidence. Because petitioners were afforded procedural due process and the circuit court applied the correct law, we find no basis upon which to disturb the circuit court’s opinion.
Accordingly, the petition is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Andrews v. Frey, 66 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…cal and unambiguous language indicating the sole offeror was Shannon Frey. Further, Appellants never objected to this error and the issue has not been preserved for this court’s review.) See Clear Channel Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of North Bay Village, 911 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). . In her concurring opinion in Dryden v. Pedemonti, 910 So. 2d 854, 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), Judge Griffin suggested that the only [*380] permissible nonmonetary conditions were those the offeror would be entitled to by operatio…
-
Ferrara v. Cmty. Developers, Ltd., 917 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…GREEN, J. (concurring). I concur in the result only based upon Miami-Dade County v. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., 863 So. 2d 195 (Fla.2003); Clear Channel Communications, Inc. v. City of North Bay Village, 911 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).…1 / 2
-
Kitchen v. State, 965 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…urred.” § 910.05, Fla. Stat. “Appellate review is confined ■ to issues decided adversely to appellánt’s position, or issues that were preserved with a sufficiently specific objection below.” Clear Channel Comme’ns, Inc. v. City of North Bay Village, 911 So. 2d 188, 189-90 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Kitchen did not raise this issue below, and in fact, defense counsel affirmatively agreed there was no objection to the case being tried in St. Lucie County. We find that defense counsel’s explicit acceptance of the tria…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Broward Cnty. v. G.B.V. Int'l, Ltd., 787 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2001)
- State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1974)
- Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1982)
- Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., 863 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2003)
- Moore v. State, 418 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Crumbley v. State, 876 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Fittipaldi USA, Inc. v. Helio Castroneves, 905 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Mabel A. Fincke, R.N. v. Peeples, 476 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Snead v. State, 415 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Turner v. State, 423 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)