RAY DIPASQUALE, APPELLANT,
v.
MAROONE FORD, LLC., APPELLEE
RAY DIPASQUALE, APPELLANT,
MAROONE FORD, LLC., APPELLEE
954 So. 2d 691
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2007)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985) (“In order to be preserved for further review by a higher court ... the specific legal argument ... to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.”); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982) (“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.”).
GUNTHER, STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB v. Stevens, 290 So. 3d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…to be redacted by the Rules of Judicial Administration). 3 Stevens did not argue below that the additional set of hole marks substantially altered the note, and as such, this argument is not preserved for appeal. See Dipasquale v. Maroone Ford, LLC, 954 So. 2d 691, 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). NPL Fin. 2015-1 v. Centurion Sys., LLC, 257 So. 3d 516, 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (footnote omitted); see also Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Rafaeli, 225 So. 3d 264, 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (stating that the “note owner had st…
Authorities Cited
- Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1982)
- Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985)