the court applied the correct law. See Wilson v. Rose Printing Co., Inc., 624 So.2d 257 (Fla.1993); Fleet Servs. Corp. v. Reise, 857 So.2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). On secondtier review, this court cannot conduct a de novo review of the record, and thus does not review the application of the correct law to the facts. See Broward County v. G.B.V. Int’l, Ltd., 787 So.2d 838, 845 (Fla.2001); see also Miami-Dade County v. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., 863 So.2d 195, 199 (Fla.2003) (“The district court may not review the record to determine whether the underlying ... decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence.”) (citing Fla. Power & Light Co. v. City of Dania, 761 So.2d 1089, 1093 (Fla.2000)); Dusseau v. Metro. Dade County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 794 So.2d 1270, 1275-76 (Fla.2001) (<HOLDING>). WARNER, POLEN and GROSS, JJ.,
holding that the district court erred in not making an inequitable conduct determination prior to ruling on the exceptional case issue holding the district court erred by reviewing the evidence and making an evidentiary ruling on secondtier review holding that a party waives an objection by failing to request a ruling on the admissibility of the evidence before the district court holding that district court erred in ruling that a particular item of evidence must be admitted in the arbitral proceeding holding that appellate court reviewing trial courts habeas corpus ruling must review record evidence in light most favorable to ruling and uphold ruling absent abuse of discretion