THE LOWELL DUNN COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SIGNAL ENGINEERING CO. OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
THE LOWELL DUNN COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
SIGNAL ENGINEERING CO. OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
368 So. 2d 386
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1979)
Caution
Cited by 10 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See: Kidd v. City of Jacksonville, 97 Fla. 297, 120 So. 556 (1929); Winchester v. Florida Electric Supply, Inc., 161 So. 2d 668 (Fla.2d 1964); Reflex N.V. v. UMET Trust, 336 So. 2d 473 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); United States v. Western Electric Co., 337 F. 2d 568 (9th Cir. 1964); United States v. F.D. Rich Co., Inc., 473 F. 2d 720 (9th Cir. 1973).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Graham v. Graham, 648 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…0 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). A cause of action for separate maintenance unconnected with marriage accrues in the county where the petitioner or the child is residing and where the petitioner is refused support by the spouse. Id. In Weinschel v. Weinschel, 368 So. 2d 386, 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), the court held that “[f]or purposes of a separate maintenance action, it is therefore irrelevant where the parties permanently reside or where the marital domicile is located.” The rationale for this rule, as explained in We…
-
Horst Rudi Wachsmuth v. Hannelore L. Wachsmuth, 528 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…ubsequent to the above motion the husband filed for divorce in Germany. He then filed a motion to dismiss or stay the proceedings here based on principles of comity. When this was denied, the husband appealed. We affirm. See Weinschel v. Weinsckel, 368 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (state courts have jurisdiction to entertain separate maintenance action unconnected with dissolution brought by nonresident temporarily in state), and Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1972) (until there is decree of dissolut…
-
Friedman v. Friedman, 383 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…35 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Indeed, the law is well-settled that “(f)or purposes of a separate maintenance action, it is . . . irrelevant where the parties permanently reside or where their marital domicile is located.” Weinschel v. Weinschel, 368 So. 2d 386, 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). In the instant case, we deal with an action brought by a wife for separate maintenance unconnected with marriage dissolution under Section 61.09, Florida Statutes (1979), against a respondent husband who is a resident of th…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reflex, N.V. v. The Umet Tr., 336 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Bertus Morrison v. Okeechobee Co., 97 Fla. 296 (Fla. 1929)
- Kidd v. City of Jacksonville, 97 Fla. 297 (Fla. 1929)
- The United States v. W. Elec. Co., Inc., 337 F.2d 568 (9th Cir. 1964)
- Winchester v. Fla. Elec. Supply, Inc., 161 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- United States for the Use of Indus. Lumber Co., Inc. v. F. D. Rich Co., Inc., 473 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1973)