YOUNG SPRING & WIRE CORP., A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, 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.
Young Spring & Wire Corp. appealed a circuit court order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding that service of process was proper under Florida Statute § 47.16(2) based on facts in the record.
The circuit court's order denying the motion to dismiss was supported by facts in the record establishing that service was made within the requirements of § 47.16(2) Fla.Stat., and therefore the order was properly affirmed.
“Simply stated this Court decided that the order of the circuit court denying the motion to dismiss was supported by the facts in the record bringing the service within the requirements of § 47.16(2) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.”
Establishes the Court's holding that service of process complied with statutory requirements, supporting affirmance of the denial of the motion to dismiss.
Young Spring & Wire Corp., a Michigan corporation, was sued by Loretta Marie Smith. The corporation moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, challen…
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 Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
The above styled interlocutory appeal was decided by this Court in December 1963, when we affirmed without opinion an order of the circuit court denying appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Smith, Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 120. The cause is before us now after the Supreme Court in the course of considering petition for certiorari, 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 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 So.2d 907 [opinion filed February 16, 1965,] we must respectfully decline, at this late date, to reconsider the cause. We do, however, recognize an obligation to inform the Supreme Court of what we consider to have been the decision of this Court in affirming-the order denying the motion to dismiss. *239which was appealed. Simply stated this Court decided that the order of the circuit court denying the motion to dismiss was supported by the facts in the record bringing the service within the requirements of § 47.16(2) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
Whereupon, the purpose of the temporary relinquishment of jurisdiction of the cause to this Court having ended, the cause is returned to the Supreme Court of Florida with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 279 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…te an opinion on each of the points supporting our decision, we must most respectfully decline upon the rationale and reasoning contained in Foley v. Weaver Drugs, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 907; Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Smith, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 238; Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-five Twenty-five, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 248; Home Development Co. of St. Petersburg v. Bursani, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 100; and Hoisington v. Kulchin, Fla.App.1965, 178 So. 2d 349. We specially agree wi…
Authorities Cited
- Foley v. Weaver Drugs, Inc., 172 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Smith, 168 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1964)
- Bunyon v. State, 159 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Witlin v. Witlin, 159 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Smith, 169 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)