Bistricer v. Ehrenreich
This text of 346 So. 2d 624 (Bistricer v. Ehrenreich) 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
The defendants, Herman Bistricer and Betty Bistricer, appeal an order denying their motion to dismiss for failure to acquire personal jurisdiction over them pursuant to Sections 48.161 and 48.181, Florida Statutes (1975).1 It affirmatively appears from the complaint filed that the plaintiffs do not allege that these defendants are non-residents of the State of Florida or, in the alternative, that they are concealing themselves.
The motion should have been granted pursuant to the rule set forth in Red Top Cab & Baggage Co. v. Holt, 154 Fla. 77, 16 So.2d 649 (1944). See also Chase Manhattan Bank v. Banco Del Atlantico, 343 So.2d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), and Nichols v. Seabreeze Properties, Inc., 302 So.2d 139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
346 So. 2d 624, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bistricer-v-ehrenreich-fladistctapp-1977.