HYDRONAUT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
LITTON SYSTEMS, INC., 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 plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proving that the defendant was engaged in business in Florida or that the cause of action arose from such business, thus justifying substituted service.
The plaintiff appealed an order quashing service of process against Litton Systems, Inc., a foreign corporation. Plaintiff attempted substituted servi…
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
This appeal is by the plaintiff from an order quashing service of process on .the sole ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over the defendant, Litton Systems, Inc.
The record indicates that the defendant is a foreign corporation and that plaintiff attempted to obtain service under Fla.Stat. § 47.16, F.S.A.
The party seeking to effect service under this statute has the burden of clearly showing that the situation presented justifies application of the statutes. Wm. E. Strasser Construction Corp. v. Linn, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 458; Fawcett Publications, Inc. v. Rand, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 512; and Unterman v. Brown, Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 522. In order to sustain this burden the plaintiff must substantiate the jurisdictional allegations of his complaint by affidavits containing statements of material fact or by other proof. Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Smith, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 903.
The record and affidavits filed in this cause do not clearly show that the defendant was engaged in such a business or business venture in Florida as to justify the use of substituted service of process in this action.
In addition thereto, it does not clearly appear from the affidavits and record that this cause of action arose out of a transaction or operation connected with or incidental to a business or business venture of the defendant here in the State of Florida. See Fla.Stat. § 47.16, F.S.A., and Unterman v. Brown, supra.
Accordingly, the order appealed from is hereby
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Dublin Co. v. Peninsular Supply Co., 309 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…Schorr, Inc., 302 So. 2d 198 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1974); Nichols v. Seabreeze Properties, Inc., 302 So. 2d 139 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1974); Citizens & Southern Bank of Atlanta v. Popkin, 281 So. 2d 522 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1973); Hydronaut, Inc. v. Litton Systems, Inc., 208 So. 2d 494 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1968): “[T]he plaintiff must substantiate the jurisdictional allegations of his complaint [*209] by affidavits containing statements of material fact or by other proof.” (Emphasis omitted.) Id. at 495. These cases, however, require s…
-
Indus. Lubricants, Inc. v. Ceco Steel Prods. Corp., 214 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…judge that the foreign corporation was engaged in a “business venture” in Florida and therefore subject to process under Fla.Stat. § 47.16 (1957), F.S.A., the predecessor to § 48.181 (1967). In Hydronaut, Inc. v. Litton Systems, Inc., Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 494, this court stated, in affirming an order quashing service: “The record indicates that the defendant is a foreign corporation and that plaintiff attempted to obtain service under Fla.Stat., § 47.16, F.S.A. “The party seeking to effect service unde…
Authorities Cited
- WM. E. Strasser Constr. Corp. v. Linn, 97 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1957)
- O'Neill v. Adams, 176 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1965)
- Fawcett Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rand, 144 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Reeves v. State, 169 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Elvin I. Unterman v. Brown, 169 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)