KEITHIE'S ROOFING CO. INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, KEITH WILSON, DARRELL WILSON, AND KEITHIE'S INDUSTRIAL HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
LEE PARKS APARTMENTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
KEITHIE'S ROOFING CO. INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, KEITH WILSON, DARRELL WILSON, AND KEITHIE'S INDUSTRIAL HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
LEE PARKS APARTMENTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
461 So. 2d 965
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1984)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 16 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The default judgment entered below against the appellant, Keithie’s Roofing Co., on the co-defendant-appellee’s cross-claim was invalid for lack of jurisdiction over the person because Keithie’s was not served with process on the cross-claim as required. Elliott Enterprises, Inc. v. Serota, 436 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Fundaro v. Canadiana Corp., 409 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Accordingly, the order under review denying Keithie’s motion pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540 to vacate the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Johnson v. State, 462 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…1] State, 454 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), at footnote 2 it was indicated that such written statement is essential and an oral pronouncement will not suffice. Accord, Millett v. State, 460 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); contra, Webster v. State, 461 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Burke v. State, 456 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Harvey v. State, 456 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The court’s departure from the presumptive guideline sentence thus may not be predicated upon its oral pronouncement; on re…
-
Oden v. State, 463 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…1984), on the issue of the need for written reasons for departing from the guidelines, we certify conflict, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(vi), with Bell v. State, 459 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Webster v. State, 461 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Brady v. State, 457 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Fleming v. State, 456 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Burke v. State, 456 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Klapp v. State, 456 So. 2d 970, 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Smith v. State,…
-
Marshall v. State, 468 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…ical trauma inflicted upon the victim is a valid reason for departure. Green v. State, 455 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). This one clear and convincing reason is sufficient to uphold the trial court’s departure from the guidelines. Webster v. State, 461 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Because the trial court erroneously applied the habitual offender statute, we reverse and remand for sentencing in accordance with the guidelines. The trial court at that time however may chose to depart from the guidelines if…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cirigliano v. Singer, 409 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Fundaro v. Canadiana Corp., 409 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Elliott Enters., Inc. v. Serota, 436 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)