Service Of Process On Foreign Corporations

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

• Zirin v. Charles Pfizer & Co., Inc.
  128 So. 2d 594· Fla.· 1961-03-29 ·cited 117×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed the scope of its jurisdiction to review District Court of Appeal decisions certified as involving questions of great public interest, and clarified that service of process on foreign corporations under Section 47.171 requires the cause of actio
• Lone Star Motor Imp., Inc. v. Citroen Cars Corp.
  288 F.2d 69· 5th Cir.· 1961-03-02 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the case without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint to allege sufficient facts showing the defendant's actual course of dealings within Texas.
• Yoder v. Nu-Enamel Corp.
  117 F.2d 488· 8th Cir.· 1941-02-11 ·cited 64×
  Service of process on the state auditor is valid against a foreign corporation that has done business in the state, even after it has ceased doing business, if the cause of action arose from its prior business activities.
• Mr. and Mrs. A. T. Stanga v. McCORMICK Shipping Corp.
  268 F.2d 544· 5th Cir.· 1959-06-25 ·cited 55×
  Service of process on a local travel agency that booked passage for a foreign steamship company is insufficient if the agency is not an agent or employee acting within the scope of authority for business activities within the state. However, a final dismissal is improper if other
• Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Simari
  191 So. 2d 427· Fla.· 1966-09-21 ·cited 34×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the District Court of Appeal's decision allowing service of process on Illinois Central Railroad Company through its district passenger agent in Miami. The Court held that under Florida's long-arm statute, service of process is only valid when t
• Frene v. Louisville Cement Co.
  D.D.C.· 1943-01-25 ·cited 26×
  A foreign corporation is subject to jurisdiction in a state where it conducts business, even if the cause of action arose elsewhere, if it is reasonable and just to do so.
• Blitzstein v. Ford Motor Co.
  288 F.2d 738· 5th Cir.· 1961-03-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in directing a verdict for American Ford on the negligence claim, as a jury could find American Ford liable for failing to warn of the dangerous condition of the car's trunk design.
• Cohen v. Am. Window Glass Co.
  126 F.2d 111· 2d Cir.· 1942-02-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while service of process on the secretary of state was valid under New York law, the federal court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over the internal affairs of a foreign corporation.
• Giusti v. Pyrotechnic Indus., Inc.
  156 F.2d 351· 9th Cir.· 1946-06-27 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the service of process on the Secretary of State was valid because the defendant's coconspirators' actions in California to destroy the plaintiff's business constituted 'business transacted' within the state, even if those actions were illegal under antitrust
• Collins v. NEW York Cent. Sys.
  327 F.2d 880· D.C. Cir.· 1963-12-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint without allowing discovery on the issue of whether the foreign corporation was 'doing business' in the District of Columbia.
• Florio v. Powder Power Tool Corp.
  248 F.2d 367· 3d Cir.· 1957-09-12 ·cited 20×
  A foreign corporation is subject to jurisdiction in Pennsylvania if its activities within the state, including restrictive distribution agreements and regular sales support, constitute 'doing business' under the state's long-arm statute, and asserting such jurisdiction does not v
• Rosenthal v. Frankfort Distillers Corp.
  193 F.2d 137· 5th Cir.· 1951-12-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the state court did not acquire personal jurisdiction over the defendant foreign corporation, and subsequent attempts to establish quasi in rem jurisdiction through distringas and garnishment were also invalid.
• ARO Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Auto. Body Research Corp.
  352 F.2d 400· 1st Cir.· 1965-11-09 ·cited 19×
  The court held that service of process was insufficient to establish jurisdiction over the defendant corporation in Massachusetts.
• Ladell Barrett v. Browning Arms Co.
  433 F.2d 141· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-06 ·cited 18×
• Elec. Equip. Co., Inc. v. Daniel Hamm Drayage Co.
  217 F.2d 656· 8th Cir.· 1954-12-22 ·cited 18×
  A foreign corporation that conducts substantial business activities within a state, even if those activities have ceased before service of process, is subject to jurisdiction in that state for causes of action arising from that business.
• Adele Manus v. Manus
  193 So. 2d 236· Fla. 4th DCA· 1966-12-30 ·cited 14×
  In this divorce action, the court affirmed the dismissal of three corporate defendants named by a wife seeking alimony and asset protection. The appellate court held that a foreign corporation not authorized to do business in Florida cannot be sued in Florida unless the cause of
• Davis v. Asano Bussan Co.
  212 F.2d 558· 5th Cir.· 1954-04-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Asano Bussan Company transacted sufficient business in Texas to be subject to its jurisdiction, establishing a prima facie case for proper service and jurisdiction. However, the record was insufficient to determine jurisdiction over Fuji Foreign Trading Compan
• Bach v. Friden Calculating Mach. Co., Inc.
  167 F.2d 679· 6th Cir.· 1948-04-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appellee corporation's systematic and continuous business activities in Ohio, through its sales agent, constituted sufficient 'presence' to make it amenable to suit in Ohio, and service of process upon the agent was valid.
• 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.
• Shelton v. Schwartz
  131 F.2d 805· 7th Cir.· 1942-11-10 ·cited 12×
  A foreign corporation maintaining a regular and established place of business in a district, even if only for soliciting orders, is subject to service of process there for patent infringement.
• Grady v. Elec. Bond & Share Co.
  137 Fla. 793· Fla.· 1939-04-25 ·cited 12×
  Electric Bond & Share Company challenged service of process in a Florida circuit court action, arguing the sheriff's return failed to establish proper jurisdiction under the statute governing service on foreign corporations. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the service as legally
• Rivera v. Nissan Mfg. Co.
  788 F.2d 819· 1st Cir.· 1986-04-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' repeated attempts to serve process on an employee of Nissan's liaison office were insufficient, especially in light of Nissan's affidavit stating no employee was authorized to accept service.
• De Santa v. Nehi Corp.
  171 F.2d 696· 2d Cir.· 1948-12-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the service of process was void because the defendant foreign corporation was not doing business in New York and the person served was not its managing agent.
• Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. v. Sullivan
  126 F.2d 433· 1st Cir.· 1942-03-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that service on the Commissioner of Corporations was valid to subject the Canadian railroad to jurisdiction, and that the trial court did not err in denying motions for directed verdicts or judgments notwithstanding the verdicts.
• 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
• Cooke-Waite Labs., Inc. v. Napier
  166 So. 2d 675· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-08-05 ·cited 8×
  Cooke-Waite Laboratories, a Delaware corporation, appeals the denial of its motion for summary judgment on jurisdictional grounds in a products liability case involving a defective hypodermic needle. The court reverses, holding that the sale of hypodermic needles to a Florida dis
• Abel v. Albina Engine & Mach. Works
  284 F.2d 510· 10th Cir.· 1960-11-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Albina Engine and Machine Works was doing business in Oklahoma, making service of process on the Secretary of State valid.
• Cummer-Graham Co. v. Straight Side Basket Corp.
  136 F.2d 828· 9th Cir.· 1943-06-26 ·cited 8×
  A foreign corporation's failure to comply with a state's laws requiring appointment of an agent for service of process does not waive its right to invoke the federal venue statute.
• Travelers Fire Ins. Co. v. Ranney-Davis Mercantile Co.
  173 F.2d 844· 10th Cir.· 1949-03-25 ·cited 6×
  The case involves a dispute over the ownership and lien rights of four automobiles that were in the possession of a car dealership which subsequently went into receivership.
• Ariz. Barite Co. v. Western-Knapp Eng'g Co.
  170 F.2d 684· 9th Cir.· 1948-11-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that at least one of the two attempted services of process was valid, and therefore the orders quashing service were erroneous.
• Seacoast Lumber Co. v. R. J. & B. F. Camp Lumber Co.
  63 Fla. 604· Fla.· 1912-01-01 ·cited 6×
  This case concerns the proper service of process on a foreign corporation. The appellate court found that the lower court erred in entering a decree pro confesso because the service of process was invalid, meaning the court never acquired jurisdiction over the defendant.
• Goldberg v. S. Builders, Inc.
  184 F.2d 345· D.C. Cir.· 1950-07-10 ·cited 4×
  A foreign corporation that conducts regular and systematic business activities within the District of Columbia, maintaining its books, records, and officers there, is considered 'doing business' in the District for jurisdictional purposes.
• Budde v. Kentron Haw., Ltd.
  565 F.2d 1145· 10th Cir.· 1977-10-31 ·cited 2×
  A Colorado state court has jurisdiction over a foreign corporation qualified to do business in Colorado if personal service is effected within the state, even if the cause of action arose outside of Colorado and is unrelated to the corporation's business there.
• Bonnot v. Freeman Chem. Corp.
  343 F.2d 68· 8th Cir.· 1965-03-31 ·cited 2×
  Service of process on a foreign corporation under Missouri's long-arm statute is invalid if the Secretary of State has no records of the corporation's principal office, as the statute provides for an impossible means of service in such cases.
• Zirin v. Charles Pfizer & Co., Inc.
  121 So. 2d 694· Fla. 3d DCA· 1960-06-30 ·cited 2×
  A foreign corporation was sued in Florida, but the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, finding the corporation was not doing business in Florida.
• 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.
• Gargac v. Smith-Rowland Co.
  170 F.2d 177· 7th Cir.· 1948-10-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that service of process on the Deputy Secretary of State was valid, and there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict regarding pollution damages.
• Dunn v. Cedar Rapids Eng'g Co. of Del.
  152 F.2d 733· 9th Cir.· 1945-12-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state superior court lacked jurisdiction over a cause of action arising entirely outside of California, and thus the federal court, on removal, also lacked jurisdiction.
• Quest Diagnostics Inc. v. Swaters
  94 So. 3d 635· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-07-18 ·cited 1×
  Quest Diagnostics sought certiorari to overturn a trial court order compelling production of a urine specimen from an airline pilot's drug test. The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the petition, holding that federal Department of Transportation regulations prohibit releas
• Barlow v. Marion Cnty. Hosp. Dist.
  M.D. Fla.· 1980-12-10 ·cited 1×
  The court granted plaintiffs' motion for class action designation, finding that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) were met, subject to further evidence regarding future class members affected by regulatory changes.
• Castaneda v. Luitpold Pharms., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-11-14
  The court held that a plaintiff must first attempt service under the Hague Service Convention before seeking alternative service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) when Florida law requires transmittal of documents abroad.
• Strickland v. Seaboard Coast Line R. R.
  35 Fla. Supp. 170· Duval Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1971-05-25
  In this negligence action involving railroad carriers, the Duval County Circuit Court upheld summary judgments for Norfolk & Western Railway and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, finding that carriers who inspect sealed freight cars externally have no duty to break the seal a
• Dickinson v. Gracy
  210 So. 2d 270· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-05-07
  Thomas Dickinson appealed the quashing of service of process against Public Finance Service, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation operating Hunt Loan Company subsidiaries in Florida. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the corporation's extensive business operat
• McMANAMAN v. T. W. & C. D. Sheridan Co.
  328 F.2d 676· 6th Cir.· 1964-02-22
  The court held that the plaintiff's action was barred by the Michigan statute of limitations because the defendant foreign corporation had been available for service of process through its legal counsel for a period exceeding three years.
• Barrett v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  10 Fla. Supp. 127· Lake Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1957-04-04
  The Florida Supreme Court granted certiorari to review a circuit court order in a lease dispute. The court held that where lease terms are clear and unambiguous, a declaratory judgment action is inappropriate, and the case should proceed on the law side. The court also held that