JAMES ROSE, PETITIONER,
v.
NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES, ET AL., 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.
The court held that the decision under review should be quashed and remanded for reconsideration in light of a prior Supreme Court decision.
The First District Court of Appeal relied on a decision that was later quashed by the Florida Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stayed proceedings in t…
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 Florida Supreme Court Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Rose v. North American Van Lines, 969 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), in which the First District Court of Appeal cited as authority its decision in Flamily v. City of Orlando, 924 So.2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), quashed sub nom. Sanders v. City of Orlando, 997 So.2d 1089 (Fla.2008). At the time the First District issued its Rose decision, Flamily was pending review in this Court (having been restyled Sanders v. City of Orlando due to petitioner’s death and the substitution of the personal representative of his estate). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).
We stayed proceedings in . this case pending our disposition of Sanders, in which we ultimately quashed the First District’s underlying Flamily decision. See Sanders v. City of Orlando, 997 So.2d 1089 (Fla.2008). We then issued an order directing respondents in the present case to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision under review, and remand for reconsideration in light of our Sanders decision. Respondents concede in their response that they have no reason to contest such action by this Court.
We thus grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the First District for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Sanders.
It is so ordered.
QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Bernard, 140 So. 3d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ms within the meaning of the statute could accrue against the Association" and that "a prerequisite for a claim to be a covered claim is that the Commissioner [of Insurance] declare the insurer to be impaired.” Id. at 277. . See Ulloa v. CMI, Inc., 133 So. 3d 914 (Fla.2013) (‘'[I]n interpreting a statute modeled after a uniform law, it is pertinent to resort to the holdings in other jurisdictions where the act is in force.'') (internal quotations omitted) . We recognize that the opinion in Petty did not con…
-
Woodruff-Sawyer & Co. v. Ghilotti, 255 So. 3d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…88 (Fla. 1990) ("The only question before this Court is whether White executed service of process on Pepsico pursuant to the requirements of the Florida Statutes."). Second, Ulloa does not involve issues of personal jurisdiction. Ulloa v. CMI, Inc., 133 So. 3d 914, 920 (Fla. 2013) ("This case clearly does not involve personal jurisdiction because [the non-party witness] is not a party to the action."). Cherry 6 has yielded to subsequent precedent. Rose's Stores, Inc. v. Cherry, 526 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 1…
-
Waite v. ALL Acquisition Corp., 901 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2018)…ervice of process ... not personal jurisdiction." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Magwitch is not inconsistent with a Florida Supreme Court decision handed down a few years earlier than Magwitch but long after White. In Ulloa v. CMI, Inc. , 133 So. 3d 914, 915 (2013), the Florida Supreme Court considered whether a party could compel a non-party, out-of-state corporation to produce documents by serving the corporation's registered agent in Florida. The party seeking to compel production, Ulloa, argued…
Authorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Sanders v. City OF Orlando, 997 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 2008)
- Flamily v. City OF Orlando & City of Orlando Risk Mgmt., 924 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Johnson v. Kaplan, 969 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Lewandowski v. Langston, 969 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)