Minimum Contacts Doctrine

120 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• French v. Gibbs Corp.
  189 F.2d 787· 2d Cir.· 1951-06-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a corporation's continued, albeit reduced, local activities, coupled with a claim arising from those activities, are sufficient to establish "presence" for personal jurisdiction, even after substantial reduction of activities.
• United Liberty Life Ins. Co. v. Ryan
  985 F.2d 1320· 6th Cir.· 1993-02-17 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a stipulation to maintain a savings and loan's capital, required by regulators as a condition for acquisition, does not constitute an enforceable contract because it lacks offer, acceptance, and consideration.
• O'Connor v. Lee-Hy Paving Corp. & Davis E. Clem
  579 F.2d 194· 2d Cir.· 1978-06-12 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the Seider v. Roth procedure, allowing jurisdiction through attachment of an insurer's obligations, survives Shaffer v. Heitner because the insurance policy is directly related to the cause of action and the insurer controls the defense. The court also held th
• Bowman v. Curt G. JOA, Inc.
  361 F.2d 706· 4th Cir.· 1966-05-24 ·cited 13×
  A federal district court in a diversity action must apply the jurisdictional limits of the state in which it sits, and the North Carolina long-arm statute did not grant jurisdiction over the defendant foreign corporation under these facts.
• Martin v. Fischbach Trucking Co.
  183 F.2d 53· 1st Cir.· 1950-06-28 ·cited 13×
  A nonresident motorist's operation of a vehicle in a state does not constitute a waiver of federal venue privileges, even if it subjects them to state court jurisdiction.
• Rose's Stores, Inc. v. Queen Cherry
  526 So. 2d 749· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-06-02 ·cited 12×
  Rose's Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation qualified to do business in Florida, was sued in Volusia County for injuries from an accident occurring in North Carolina. The court held that a foreign corporation qualified to do business in Florida and served on its registered agent
• Assocs. Cap. Servs. Corp. v. Loftin's Transfer & Storage Co., Inc.
  554 F.2d 188· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-16 ·cited 12×
  A foreign corporation's isolated contacts with Alabama, primarily through mail and phone, and taking security interests in property located there, do not constitute 'doing business' such that it must qualify to do business in Alabama to maintain a suit.
• Anselmi v. The Denver Post, Inc.
  552 F.2d 316· 10th Cir.· 1977-03-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Wyoming Long-Arm Statute § 5-4.2(a)(iii) applies to claims arising from tortious injury within the state, and that the single publication rule does not preclude personal jurisdiction in the plaintiff's domicile state. Minimum contacts were found sufficient
• Babson Bros. Co. v. Allison
  298 So. 2d 450· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-07-16 ·cited 12×
  Babson Bros. Co., an Illinois corporation, appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing it had insufficient contacts with Florida to be subject to substituted service under Florida's long arm statute. The court held that Babson's busines
• Burchett v. Bardahl OIL Co. & Nance & Assocs., Ltd.
  470 F.2d 793· 10th Cir.· 1972-12-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding sufficient contacts to establish jurisdiction over the non-resident corporation under Oklahoma's long-arm statutes, based on the alleged distributorship and business activities within the state.
• Kourkene v. Am. BBR, Inc.
  313 F.2d 769· 9th Cir.· 1963-01-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that service of process on Ryerson was invalid because Ryerson was a licensee, not an agent, and that the appellee was not 'doing business' in California, thus quashing service through the Secretary of State was proper.
• W. H. Elliott & Sons Co., Inc. v. Nuodex Prods. Co., Inc.
  243 F.2d 116· 1st Cir.· 1957-03-26 ·cited 12×
  The exercise of personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation is permissible if its activities within the state are sufficiently connected to the cause of action, consistent with due process.
• Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Lisajane Romer and Kevin Romer as Natural Parents and Guardians of Mathew Romer
  710 So. 2d 67· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-04-01 ·cited 11×
  Florida has personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant that processes biological materials used in the ordinary course of business in Florida under section 48.193(1)(f)(2), where the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the state to satisfy constitutional due p
• Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York v. Philadelphia Resins Corp.
  766 F.2d 440· 10th Cir.· 1985-07-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant manufacturer's contacts with Utah were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, as the product entered the forum state through fortuitous events rather than purposeful availment of the Utah market.
• Lindley v. ST. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
  407 F.2d 639· 7th Cir.· 1968-12-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Railroad's activities in Illinois, consisting solely of soliciting business, were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under Illinois law, even if those activities were continuous and systematic.
• McKEE v. Brunswick Corp. & Flagship Boats, Inc.
  354 F.2d 577· 7th Cir.· 1965-12-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding Mallory and Brunswick negligent and liable for installing a defective coil, and that Bond breached its implied warranty of fitness to the owner. The court also held that the warranty extended to passengers, reversing the
• McLean v. Church of Scientology of Cal.
  538 F. Supp. 545· M.D. Fla.· 1982-03-16 ·cited 9×
  The court held that constructive service of process upon the defendants was valid under Florida Statute 48.181, as plaintiffs sufficiently established that the defendants engaged in business in Florida and that the suit arose from that business, despite defendants' challenges.
• Elvin I. Unterman v. Brown
  169 So. 2d 522· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-12-09 ·cited 9×
  A nonresident director and officer of a Florida corporation is not subject to service of process in Florida for a cause of action against the corporation unless the director's activities in Florida are connected to the cause of action.
• Peterson v. U-Haul Co.
  409 F.2d 1174· 8th Cir.· 1969-04-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that U-Haul Co. was not subject to jurisdiction in Nebraska under either the Non-Resident Motor Vehicle Statute or the Business Corporation Act because its activities did not constitute 'operation' or 'use' of a vehicle in the state, nor did it meet the 'doing busi
• Mech. Contractors Ass'n OF Am., Inc. v. Mech. Contractors Ass'n OF N. Cal., Inc.
  342 F.2d 393· 9th Cir.· 1965-02-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the National Association's activities in California, including sponsoring a rival association and interfering with the Local, constituted 'doing business' sufficient to establish minimum contacts for valid service of process under California law and the Fourte
• Consol. Jewelers, Inc. v. Standard Fin. Corp.
  325 F.2d 31· 6th Cir.· 1963-12-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a contract's choice of law provision is enforceable if the chosen state has a reasonable relation to the transaction and the parties acted in good faith.
• Harris v. Deere & Co.
  223 F.2d 161· 4th Cir.· 1955-06-13 ·cited 8×
  A parent corporation is not considered to be doing business in a state merely because its wholly-owned subsidiary sells the parent's products there, if the separate corporate entities are maintained and the subsidiary purchases the goods it sells.
• COX Enters., Inc. v. Darwin Holt
  678 F.2d 936· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-14 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the defendant publisher and reporter lacked sufficient contacts with Alabama to establish personal jurisdiction in a federal court, particularly in a libel action where First Amendment considerations require a higher showing of contact.
• Corley v. Lloyd Milliken and "Capt. Jeffery
  389 So. 2d 976· Fla.· 1980-10-16 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that section 48.19 of the Florida Statutes does not authorize service of process on the Secretary of State in an action against a nonresident shipowner where the maritime accident occurred outside Florida waters, even though the vessel used a Florid
• Storer v. Storer
  346 So. 2d 994· Fla.· 1977-04-07 ·cited 6×
• Schutt v. The Commercial Travelers Mut. Accident Ass'n OF Am.
  229 F.2d 158· 2d Cir.· 1956-01-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Tennessee statute authorizing substituted service of process on foreign insurance companies doing business in the state applied to policies issued before the statute's enactment and delivered outside Tennessee, as long as the company had sufficient minimum
• Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. v. Bennett Fields
  346 So. 3d 102· Fla. 1st DCA· 2022-05-18 ·cited 5×
  The appellate court reversed a lower court's decision, finding that a South Korean battery manufacturer did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to be subject to personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff's injury from an exploding vaping device did not arise from the manu
• Galego v. Robinson
  695 So. 2d 443· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-05-28 ·cited 5×
  Paul Galego, a Rhode Island resident serving as attorney-in-fact under a durable power of attorney executed by a deceased Florida resident, challenged the probate court's jurisdiction over him in a suit alleging mismanagement of estate assets. The Florida District Court of Appeal
• Anne M. Morris v. Morris
  672 So. 2d 622· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-04-26 ·cited 4×
  Section 48.193(1)(e), Florida Statutes, does not confer jurisdiction over a former spouse for child support when both parties left Florida to establish residence in another state before separating.
• Levinson v. Brosche
  578 So. 2d 477· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-04-24 ·cited 4×
  A Florida appellate court reversed the dismissal of general partners from a lawsuit based on insufficient contacts with Florida. The court held that because a limited partnership has no independent legal identity and derives its identity from its general partners, if the partners
• Moncrief v. Lexington Herald-Leader Co
  807 F.2d 217· D.C. Cir.· 1986-12-16 ·cited 4×
  A nonresident newspaper publisher that sends an allegedly libelous article into the District of Columbia is not subject to the District's long-arm statute jurisdiction based solely on newsgathering activities or the mailing of the publication.
• Ford Motor Co. v. Atwood Vacuum Mach. Co.
  392 So. 2d 1305· Fla.· 1981-01-08 ·cited 4×
  Ford Motor Company appealed a dismissal of its third-party complaint against Atwood Vacuum Machine Company, a component manufacturer, based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The Florida Supreme Court held that section 48.193(1)(f)(2) of the Florida long-arm statute applied and wa
• Lakewood Pipe OF Tex., Inc. v. Rubaii
  379 So. 2d 475· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-12-12 ·cited 4×
  Lakewood Pipe of Texas appeals a trial court's denial of its motion to quash service of process in a suit by Dr. Rubaii to enforce a guarantee of contractual obligations. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that Lakewood's guarantee of payment obligations in Florida doe
• Ark. Poultry Coop., Inc. v. The RED Barn Sys., Inc.
  468 F.2d 538· 8th Cir.· 1972-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's contacts with Arkansas were insufficient to establish in personam jurisdiction under the state's long-arm statute.
• Wilen Mfg. Co., Inc. v. The Standard Prods. Co.
  409 F.2d 56· 5th Cir.· 1969-02-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the term 'nonresident' in Georgia's long-arm statute includes corporations, not just natural persons.
• Pape Television Co., Inc. v. Associated Artists Prod. Corp. & A.A.P., Inc.
  277 F.2d 750· 5th Cir.· 1960-04-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that allegations of block booking, where a distributor licenses desirable films only on the condition that the exhibitor also license less desirable films, are sufficient to state a claim for restraint of trade under the Sherman Act, and that venue and service of p
• Murphy v. Murphy
  342 So. 3d 799· Fla. 1st DCA· 2022-07-06 ·cited 3×
  The appellate court reversed a lower court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court found that the former wife failed to properly plead and prove that her ex-husband had sufficient current contacts with Florida to establish jurisdiction under t
• Lorelei Corp. v. Cnty. OF Guadalupe
  940 F.2d 717· 1st Cir.· 1991-07-25 ·cited 2×
  A federal court in Maine cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over Texas county officials based on tortious acts occurring entirely in Texas, even if those acts have consequences felt in Maine.
• United States v. de Ortiz
  910 F.2d 376· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction, but that the case should be remanded for reconsideration of the forfeiture order and plea agreement, as the bail money may not have been forfeitable.
• Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., Inc. v. Duran
  451 So. 2d 895· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-05-29 ·cited 2×
• Balogh's of Coral Gables, Inc. v. Getz
  510 F. Supp. 741· S.D. Fla.· 1981-03-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that allegations of an agreement between a manufacturer's distributor and a retailer to exclude a competitor do not constitute a per se violation of the Sherman Act, but rather a vertical restraint subject to the rule of reason, and that the complaint failed to all
• Iliff v. Am. Fire Apparatus Co., Inc.
  277 F.2d 360· 4th Cir.· 1960-04-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant foreign corporation was not 'doing business' in Virginia, and therefore service of process upon its agent was improper.
• Norton v. Ruste Durnal Bridges
  712 F.2d 1156· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-15 ·cited 1×
  A Wisconsin court can assert personal jurisdiction over defendants in a trust dispute if the trust was registered in Wisconsin and the settlor granted the Wisconsin court power to appoint successor trustees, satisfying due process minimum contacts, even if trust assets are locate
• Schmidt v. Taylor
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2026-09-02
  A Florida court lacks personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants who allegedly exercised undue influence over a decedent when the alleged influence was not exercised in Florida and the defendants did not commit tortious acts in Florida or consent to jurisdiction.
• Worldwide Aircraft Servs., Inc. v. Anthem Ins. Cos., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-31
  The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant insurer because the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient contacts with Florida, and therefore granted the motion to dismiss.
• Pena v. Helidosa Aviation Grp., S.A.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-20
  Jurisdictional discovery is appropriate and highly favored when a plaintiff seeks to discover facts supporting allegations of personal jurisdiction, and the relevant inquiry is whether discovery will reveal additional facts supporting jurisdiction rather than whether facts in the
• Hernandez v. Helidosa Aviation Grp., S.A.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-20
  Limited jurisdictional discovery is appropriate and highly favored under Eleventh Circuit precedent when a plaintiff seeks to discover facts supporting allegations of personal jurisdiction over a defendant. The court granted discovery limited to one four-hour Rule 30(b)(6) deposi
• Pliteq, Inc. v. Mostafa
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-06-19
  A Canadian sound reduction technology company sued its former Dubai-based manager for misappropriating trade secrets and confidential information after his termination in November 2023. The magistrate judge denied the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdictio
• KCG, Inc. v. Bolin
  250 So. 3d 130· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-08-08
  A defendant lacks sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to be subject to personal jurisdiction where the plaintiff's only allegation is his own use of a product allegedly manufactured or distributed by the defendant, and the defendant had no established contacts with Florida d
• Fromm AND Partner v. Bartels
  736 So. 2d 769· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-07-07
  The trial court erred in dismissing the case for lack of personal jurisdiction based on an insufficient affidavit when the plaintiff's intent was to present live testimony.