CHANCE PILKINGTON LIMITED, PILKINGTON BROTHERS PLC., APPELLANTS,
v.
VISUAL SCENE, INC., MYRON ORLINSKY AND PETER PATRAKA AND METRO CORP., APPELLEES
CHANCE PILKINGTON LIMITED, PILKINGTON BROTHERS PLC., APPELLANTS,
VISUAL SCENE, INC., MYRON ORLINSKY AND PETER PATRAKA AND METRO CORP., APPELLEES
488 So. 2d 155
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1986)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Agreeing that the contacts with the State of Florida of both appellant Pilkington Brothers pic. and appellant Chance Pilking-ton Limited were sufficient to warrant the trial court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction pursuant to the long-arm statute, we affirm the order denying appellants’ motions to dismiss. § 48.193(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985); see Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Waldrip v. Dyal Sales Co., 436 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Anson v. Lemperuer, 390 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O.A. Winburn, Jr. v. The First Fla. Nat'l Bank OF Live OAK, 490 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…an appearance after the entry of default cannot validate what would otherwise be a void judgment due to improper service of process. We disagree with both of appellant’s aforementioned claims. As distinguished from Boyd v. Banc One Mortgage Corp., 488 So. 2d 155 (Fla.3d DCA 1986), where the Third District Court of Appeal summarily found that none of the activities of Ms. Boyd’s counsel constituted a submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court, appellant in the case at bar argued the merits of his case…
Authorities Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985)
- Anson v. Lemperuer, 390 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Waldrip v. Dyal Sales Co., Inc., 436 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)