EAGLE-PICHER INDUS. INC. v. Proverb
This text of 464 So. 2d 658 (EAGLE-PICHER INDUS. INC. v. Proverb) 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
EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant,
v.
Shirley PROVERB, As Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard Proverb, Owens-Corning, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, et al., Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Michael K. McLemore of Kimbrell, Hamann, Jennings, Womack, Carlson & Kniskern, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
John F. Venable of Venable, Venable & Venable, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court's non-final order denying appellant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Section 48.081, Florida Statutes (1983) makes no requirement of connexity between the cause of action being sued upon and the defendant foreign corporation's Florida business activities, if the defendant has a business office within the state and is actually engaged in business therefrom, and process is served upon a resident business agent of the defendant. This statute does not violate territorial jurisdiction limitations imposed by the due process clause of *659 the Fourteenth Amendment. See Hoffman v. Air India, 393 F.2d 507 (5th Cir.1968); Dombroff v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., 450 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), and cases cited therein.
LETTS, GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
464 So. 2d 658, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eagle-picher-indus-inc-v-proverb-fladistctapp-1985.