YOUNG SPRING & WIRE CORPORATION, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
LORETTA MARIE SMITH, RESPONDENT
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 Supreme Court reviewed a jurisdictional challenge to service of process on a foreign corporation in a civil dispute. The Court found the District Court of Appeal's affirmance without opinion insufficient to determine jurisdiction and remanded for the appellate court to provide reasoned analysis before deciding whether to accept the case.
The Court determined it could not properly exercise jurisdiction without a reasoned opinion from the District Court of Appeal explaining the basis for its decision. The Court therefore remanded to the District Court to reconsider the case and issue an opinion before the Supreme Court would determine whether to accept review.
“Inasmuch as the District Court of Appeal affirmed without an opinion the decision of the Circuit Court, we are without the benefit of a majority opinion of the District Court of Appeal, which renders our task and duty of determining the question of jurisdiction more difficult.”
Establishes that the Supreme Court cannot properly exercise jurisdiction when the appellate court provides no reasoned opinion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYoung Spring & Wire Corporation, a Michigan corporation, was served as a defendant in a Circuit Court action brought by Loretta Marie Smith. The corpo…
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 Substituted Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, defendant in the Circuit Court, seeks review by certiorari of a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, affirming, without opinion, an order of the Circuit Court denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Young Spring & Wire Corporation v. Smith, Fla.App.1963, 159 So.2d 120. Petitioner asserts that a direct conflict exists between the instant case and Fawcett Publications, Inc., v. Brown, Fla.App. 1962, 146 So.2d 899.
Probable jurisdiction having been made-to appear on the theory of “direct conflict,”' the cause was set down for oral argument on the question of jurisdiction and on the merits, and is now before this Court for decision in the light of such argument and' the briefs of the parties.
Necessarily, we must first address ourselves to the question of our jurisdiction under Article V of the Constitution of Florida F.S.A. to review the cause. Inasmuch as the District Court of Appeal affirmed without an opinion the decision of the Circuit Court, we are without the benefit of a majority opinion of the District Court of Appeal, which renders our task and duty of determining the question of jurisdiction more difficult. Because the District Court of Appeal did not express an opinion, we examined the record proper, which reveals questions of significant import in regard to substituted service of a foreign corporation and the manner in which such service can properly be effected under our laws. Our final decision in this cause would be greatly facilitated by an expression of the District Court of Appeal of the theory and reasoning upon which its judgment is bottomed and a request thereto by this Court is not unreasonable or improper. See Home Development Company of St. Petersburg, Inc. et al. v. Bursani et al., Fla., 168 So.2d 131, opinion filed October 2, 1964. Cf. State v. Bruno, Fla., 104 So.2d 588, and Rosenthal v. Scott, Fla., 131 So.2d 480.
Accordingly, request is respectfully made to the District Court of Appeal, Third District, that it reconsider the cause and *541render an opinion setting forth the basis and reasoning upon which its decision in the cause is reached; and jurisdiction is relinquished to that court, temporarily, for such purpose, upon completion of which this Court will proceed to determine whether the cause should be reviewed here under Article V, Constitution of Florida.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and ROBERTS, O’CON-NELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
THOMAS and THORNAL, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Greyhound Owners & Breeders Ass'n, Inc. v. W. Flagler Assocs., Ltd., 347 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1977)…131 So. 2d 480 (Fla.1961), deciding by a divided court (5-2) to request an opinion on a per curiam reversal. . See, for example, Home Development Co. of St. Petersburg, Inc. v. Bursani, 168 So. 2d 131 (Fla.1964); Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Smith, 168 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1964); Fontainebleau [*411] Hotel Corp. v. Forty-five Twenty-five, Inc., 168 So. 2d 317 (Fla.1964). . In Acme Specialty Corp. v. City of Miami, 292 So. 2d 379, 380 (Fla.3d DCA 1974), the court stated that while “sufficient to support a plea o…
-
Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Smith, 172 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…relinquished jurisdiction temporarily with the request that we reconsider the cause and render an opinion setting forth the basis and reasoning upon which our decision in the cause was reached. See Young Spring & Wire Corporation v. Smith, Fla.1964, 168 So. 2d 540. Pursuant to the request of our Supreme Court, we permitted the filing of additional briefs by the parties. See Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Smith, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 846. Each party has now submitted an additional brief containing citations t…
-
Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Smith, 176 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1965)…g of this case by preparing and adopting an opinion setting forth the theory and reasoning upon which its decision had been based, and relinquished to that court, temporarily, jurisdiction to do so. See Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Smith (Fla.1964), 168 So. 2d 540. That court in its opinion filed February 23, 1965, (Case #63704) respectfully declined to re-consider the same. This Court was recently faced with a similar situation in Foley v. Weaver Drugs, Inc., 177 So. 2d 221, Opinion filed April 28, 1965, wh…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Bruno, 104 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1958)
- Murray Rosenthal and Joseph Rosenthal v. Scott, 131 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1961)
- Fawcett Publ'ns, Inc. v. Brown, 146 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Home Dev. Co. OF ST. Petersburg, Inc. v. Bursani, 168 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1964)
- Bunyon v. State, 159 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Witlin v. Witlin, 159 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)