MICHAEL S. POMERANTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
JACOB J. HOLLOWELL, APPELLEE
MICHAEL S. POMERANTZ, APPELLANT,
JACOB J. HOLLOWELL, APPELLEE
502 So. 2d 1314
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1987)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the trial court’s order denying Pomerantz’s motion to dismiss for improper service. It is well established that nonresident witnesses who voluntarily enter the state to testify in pending litigation are immune from service of process for a reasonable time before and after they testify. Stokes v. Bell, 441 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1983); Lienard v. De Witt, 153 So. 2d 302 (Fla.1963); Murphy & Jordan, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 278 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The evidence established that Pomerantz was a resident of Georgia who entered Florida only to provide deposition testimony in a suit wherein he was not a party. As such, he was immune from service when he was served immediately following his deposition.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Franco Francini and Claudio Menicocci v. Int'l Marble Trades, Inc., 546 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…the state to testify in pending litigation, are immune from service of process for a reasonable time before and after testifying. Stokes v. Bell, 441 So. 2d 146 (Fla.1983); Higgins v. Garcia, 522 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Pomerantz v. Hollowell, 502 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Nevertheless, there is a recognized exception to the nonresident witness immunity rule where the process is issued in litigation incidental to or correlated with the subject matter of the proceeding which the witness was attendin…
-
In re the Marriage OF Hector Manuel Gonzalez, 584 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…stablished rule that nonresident witnesses who have entered the state to testify in pending litigation on behalf of a party are immune from service of process individually. Higgins v. Garcia, 522 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Pomerantz v. Hollowell, 502 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1987); Murphy & Jordan, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America, 278 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Although the appellee argues that Gonzalez filed a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction as against himself, which was the subje…
Authorities Cited
- Lienard v. DeWITT, 153 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1963)
- Murphy & Jordan, Inc. v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am., 278 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Stokes v. Bell, 441 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1983)