TEEBY REALTY CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
GASWAY CORPORATION, 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 court held that the trial court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction was proper because the appellant failed to demonstrate error in the record.
The plaintiff (appellant) sued a foreign corporation, but the trial court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The defendant argued i…
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 Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporations cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal involves the propriety of an order of a trial court dismissing a cause of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the appellee. The question was a purported service of process upon a foreign corporation, pursuant to Ch. 47, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
By appropriate pleadings, the defendant in the trial Court raised the question of whether or not it had sufficient contacts within the State of Florida to subject it to substituted service of process under the aforesaid statute. As has been said before, each of these cases must turn upon their own facts. See: Mason v. Mason Products Co., Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 762; Toffel v. Baugher, Fla.App.1960, 125 So.2d 321; G & M Restaurants Corp. v. Tropical Music Service, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 556. In the Mason v. Mason Products Co. case, supra, the following is found:
* * * * * *
“Each case of this kind must rest on its own bottom for the simple reason that whether service is valid depends on what the facts are. There is no way to lay down a general principle applicable to all cases. See International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, supra *32 [326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95, 161 A.L.R. 1057]; Atlantic & Gulf Grocery Co. v. Aetna Mills Co., 77 Fla. 113, 80 So. 738; and see Note (1938) 113 A.L.R. 9, containing an exhaustive annotation on the subject of who may be served to bind a foreign corporation. See also the recent case of State ex rel. Weber v. Register, Fla., 67 So.2d 619, discussing what is ‘doing business’ in a State.”
******
The appellant has failed to make it appear from the record that the trial judge committed error. Therefore, we affirm his action in dismissing the cause.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kastan v. Kastan, 222 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…ts with (the state) such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Moreover, this court has recognized, in the case of Teeby Realty Corporation v. Gasway Corporation, Fla.App.1965, 181 So. 2d 31, that each case questioning the requisites as to substituted service of process must turn on its own facts. See also Wm. E. Strasser Const. Corp. v. Linn, Fla.1957, 97 So. 2d 458. Upon the facts before us, we are compelled to hold that the order bei…
Authorities Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. State OF Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945)
- State ex rel. Weber et ux. v. Register, 67 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1953)
- Mason v. Mason Prods. Co., 67 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1953)
- Toffel v. Baugher, 125 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- G & M Rests. Corp. v. Tropical Music Serv., Inc., 161 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Atl. & Gulf Grocery Co. v. The Aetna Mills Co., 77 Fla. 113 (Fla. 1919)