YOUNG SPRING & WIRE CORP., A MICHIGAN CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LORETTA MARIE SMITH, 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 Supreme Court remanded to the District Court of Appeal for an opinion on an interlocutory appeal decision affirming a circuit court judgment, citing important unresolved questions regarding substituted service of a foreign corporation that require the appellate court's reasoned analysis before the Supreme Court could determine its jurisdiction to review.
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the District Court of Appeal with a request that the court reconsider the cause and render a written opinion setting forth the basis and reasoning for its decision, upon completion of which the Supreme Court would determine whether to review the cause under Article V of the Florida Constitution.
“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.”
Explains the Supreme Court's difficulty in reviewing the case without appellate reasoning
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 Corp., a Michigan corporation doing business in Florida, appealed an interlocutory decision from the Circuit Court. The District C…
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
Notice of interlocutory appeal was filed in this cause on September 30, 1963. Oral argument was heard on December 2, 1963, and a per curiam decision of affirmance was filed on December 10, 1963.
Thereafter, a petition for certiorari was sought in the Supreme Court of Florida by the appellant herein, which resulted in an opinion and order by the Supreme Court filed in this Court on November 16, 1964, which reads in part as follows:
“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 render 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.”
In order to adequately comply with the above request and to prepare an opinion which will do justice to the contentions of both appellant and appellee and aid the Supreme Court in determining the question of its jurisdiction, it is necessary, because of the lapse of time, to have the cause properly presented for our reconsideration. Therefore it is
Ordered and adjudged as follows:
1. That the appellant may but is not required to file an additional brief in this matter within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.
2. That the appellee may but is not required to file an additional brief in reply to that filed in accordance with the next above paragraph within twenty (20) days of the receipt of the appellant’s additional brief.
3. That the appellant be and it is hereby given, if it so desires, ten (10) days from the receipt of an additional brief filed by *848the appellee as provided in the next above paragraph, within which to file a reply brief.
4. Thereupon, notice of time of oral argument will be given if such is required by the court.
5. That the clerk of this court be and he is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Smith, 172 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…use 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 to additional authorities, some of which have been decided since the time of the rendition of our decision. For reasons set out in Foley v. Weaver Drugs, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 172…
-
McLAIN v. McCLAIN, 305 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…ble but long delays, like this, in a clear cut case, like this, are not justifiable. See State v. Bruno, 104 So. 2d 588 (Fla.1958); Mowery v. First National Bank of Miami, 228 So. 2d 298 (Fla.App. 4th 1969); and Young Spring and Wire Corp. v. Smith, 169 So. 2d 846 (Fla.App. 3rd 1964). Also see Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., 168 So. 2d 317 (Fla.1964); Home Development Co. of St. Petersburg v. Bursani, 168 So. 2d 131 (Fla.1964); and Rosenthal v. Scott, 131 So. 2d 480 (Fla.1961). In…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Bruno, 104 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1958)
- Murray Rosenthal and Joseph Rosenthal v. Scott, 131 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1961)
- Home Dev. Co. OF ST. Petersburg, Inc. v. Bursani, 168 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1964)