JACK J. HONIG, APPELLANT,
v.
ABRAHAM N. KLEIN, 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 erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction over the defendant and denying the plaintiff's motion for default.
The defendant was served under specific Florida statutes. The trial court found it lacked jurisdiction and denied the plaintiff's motion for default.…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
This interlocutory appeal presents for our determination the question of whether or not jurisdiction has been had by the trial court over the person of the defendant. Defendant was served under the provisions of §§ 47.16(1) and 47.30, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
The orders appealed hold that the plaintiff has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, and that plaintiff’s motion for default against the defendant, individually be denied.
Our review of the record and the law 1 leads us to the conclusion that the trial judge erred in the entry of the orders appealed. It is our view that the defendant, Klein, is amenable to substituted service by virtue of the provisions of § 47.16(1), supra, and that the plaintiff complied with the essential procedural steps prescribed by § 47.30, supra.
Accordingly the orders appealed are reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Perry, 605 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…Van Eeghen v. Williams, 87 So. 2d 45 (Fla.1956). Specifically, the court held that the state is actually held to an even greater degree of proof than that required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See also State ex rel. Hyde v. Thursby, 184 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). We recognize that, at this point, all parties are relying upon representations that may not be borne out once all the evidence has been presented at a full hearing on the merits. It may well be that a jury could legitimately co…
-
State ex rel. Edward E. Loper v. Stack, 291 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…he applicable principles pertaining thereto.1 Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied. WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur. . In support of his contention, petitioner cites James v. State, Fla.1970, 241 So. 2d 383, and State v. Thursby, Fla.App.1966, 184 So. 2d 505. These cases, which are both factually and legally distinguishable from the case sub judice, dealt primarily with the quantum of proof and admissibility of certain proof rather than burden of proof.…
-
Preston v. Sheriff David GEE, 133 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…f discovered the items in the vehicle, and assuming further that the vehicle was in some way connected to Preston, these circumstances did not meet the quantum of proof necessary to deny Preston’s pretrial release. See State ex rel. Hyde v. Thursby, 184 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966) (holding that circumstantial evidence of accused’s guilt that did not exclude hypotheses of innocence failed to exceed the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, and so was insufficient to deprive him of his right to pretrial rele…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- WM. E. Strasser Constr. Corp. v. Linn, 97 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1957)
- Fla. Inv. Enters., Inc. v. The Ky. Co., Inc., 160 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)