A.D.M. Productions, Inc. v. Solomon
This text of 847 So. 2d 1139 (A.D.M. Productions, Inc. v. Solomon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Pursuant to our previous mandate in A.D.M. Prods., Inc. v. Solomon, 831 So.2d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), the trial court conducted a Kinney1 hearing on the appellant’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens and denied the same. On this appeal, on the record before us, we cannot find that the denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061(a); Ira Mex, Inc. v. Southeastern Interior Constr., Inc., 777 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (decision to grant or deny motion to dismiss from inconvenient forum rests in sound discretion of trial court, subject to review for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm the same.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
847 So. 2d 1139, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 9408, 2003 WL 21459626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adm-productions-inc-v-solomon-fladistctapp-2003.