LEON T. GLISSON, APPELLANT,
v.
CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a complaint against a foreign railroad company due to insufficient service of process. The court held that service on a soliciting agent in Florida was not sufficient to establish jurisdiction when the cause of action did not arise from activities within the state.
No, service of process on a soliciting agent of a foreign railroad company in Florida was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction when the cause of action did not arise from the company's activities within Florida.
“On the facts of this case, service on the company's agent in Florida, designated in the return as the freight agent, was not sufficient under §§ 47.17 or 47.171, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. to confer jurisdiction over the defendant corporation”
This quote establishes the court's conclusion regarding the insufficiency of the service of process.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, an employee of the defendant railroad company, filed a negligence suit in Florida. The defendant is a foreign corporation that does not…
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 Sufficiency Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the plaintiff below from an order which dismissed his complaint. Plaintiff resided in Florida and was an employee of the defendant railroad company. His complaint, filed in Dade County, Florida, for damages allegedly resulting from the company’s negligence, was dismissed for “insufficient process and service of process”. The defendant is a foreign corporation, not authorized to do business in Florida, and owns no tracks and operates no trains in this state. It maintains agents in Florida who are engaged in soliciting business to be handled by the company in other states. The business solicited by the company’s agents in Florida was not for carriage within or for shipments into Florida,-and the cause of action sued upon did not arise in Florida or out of activities of the defendant corporation conducted in Florida. On the facts of this case, service on the company’s agent in Florida, designated on the return as the freight agent, was not sufficient under §§ 47.17 or 47.171, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. to confer jurisdiction over the defendant corporation, and in so holding the trial judge was eminently correct. Zirin v. Charles Pfizer & Co., Fla.1961, 128 So.2d 594; H. Bell & Associates, Inc. v. Keasbey & Mattison Co., Fla.App.1962, 140 So.2d 125.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Harry Pepper & Assocs., Inc. v. Harley O. Al Lasseter, Sr., 247 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…osecution § 4. “An essential allegation will not be imported into the declaration by mere inference or intendment”. Southern Liquor Distributors v. Kaiser, 150 Fla. 52, 7 So. 2d 600 (1942). See also Edwards v. Maule Industries, Inc., Fla.App. 1962, 147 So. 2d 5. Finally, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in dismissing its civil action for champerty and maintenance against the defendants. Assuming arguendo, that a civil action lies in Florida for champerty and maintenance, there are no allegati…
-
Cassel v. Price, 396 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…gnolia tree, can be considered an attraction to active children. However, there is lacking in this case the element of a “hidden danger,” or “trap,” without which the attractive nuisance doctrine does not apply. See Edwards v. Maulé Industries Inc., 147 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1962), holding that piles of sand, which toppled and fell upon a child, causing his death, did not constitute an attractive nuisance. In McDaniel v. Mendez, 198 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1967), where a child fell from a couch striking h…
-
Concrete Constr., Inc. v. Petterson, 216 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1968)…Tucker Brothers, Inc. v. Menard, Fla., 90 So. 2d 908; Ansin v. Thurston, Fla.App., 98 So. 2d 87; Adler v. Copeland, Fla.App., 105 So. 2d 594; Miller v. Guernsey Construction Co., Fla.App., 112 So. 2d 55; Edwards v. Maule Industries, Inc., Fla.App., 147 So. 2d 5. So the first prerequisite of plaintiff’s case is an allegation of the something which allured the child else he had no status calling for reasonable care. Plaintiff here relies upon the premise that any building under construction is such as to al…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Zirin v. Charles Pfizer & Co., Inc., 128 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1961)
- H. Bell & Assocs., Inc. v. Keasbey & Mattison Co., 140 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)