Ernest William Davis, Etc. v. Pyrofax Gas Corporation, Etc., and Goss, Inc., Etc.

Eleventh Circuit

Ernest William Davis, Etc. v. Pyrofax Gas Corporation, Etc., and Goss, Inc., Etc.

805 F.2d 370, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 34282

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedDecember 3, 1986

Docket83-3715

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 805 F.2d 370 (Ernest William Davis, Etc. v. Pyrofax Gas Corporation, Etc., and Goss, Inc., Etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ernest William Davis, Etc. v. Pyrofax Gas Corporation, Etc., and Goss, Inc., Etc., 805 F.2d 370, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 34282 (11th Cir. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Florida Supreme Court has answered in the affirmative the question certified by us to that court in this case. For our question and attendant opinion, see 753 F.2d 928 (11th Cir.1985). For the answer by the Supreme Court of Florida and its attendant opinion, see 492 So.2d 1044 (Fla.1986).

The decision by the Florida Supreme Court disposes of the issue of jurisdiction over the two defendants in this case. The second issue on appeal related to the matter of the district court’s dismissal of the complaint for insufficient service of process. That order should have quashed the service of process with leave to amend for proper service. We remand this issue to the district court for treatment in accordance with the holding in Jim Fox Enterprises, Inc. v. Air France, 664 F.2d 63 (5th Cir.1981) (non-binding, and the cases cited therein which are binding.) See also Stanga v. McCormick Shipping Corp., 268 F.2d 544, 554 (5th Cir.1959). See also Vorhees v. Fisher & Krecke, 697 F.2d 574 (4th Cir.1983).

This case is REVERSED with respect to the jurisdictional issue and REMANDED with respect to the service of process issue.

REVERSED in part and REMANDED in part.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The Florida Supreme Court has answered in the affirmative the question certified by us to that court in this case. For our question and attendant opinion, see 753 F.2d 928 (11th Cir.1985). For the answer by the Supreme Court of Florida and its attendant opinion, see 492 So.2d 1044 (Fla.1986).

The decision by the Florida Supreme Court disposes of the issue of jurisdiction over the two defendants in this case. The second issue on appeal related to the matter of the district court’s dismissal of the complaint for insufficient service of process. That order should have quashed the service of process with leave to amend for proper service. We remand this issue to the district court for treatment in accordance with the holding in Jim Fox Enterprises, Inc. v. Air France, 664 F.2d 63 (5th Cir.1981) (non-binding, and the cases cited therein which are binding.) See also Stanga v. McCormick Shipping Corp., 268 F.2d 544, 554 (5th Cir.1959). See also Vorhees v. Fisher & Krecke, 697 F.2d 574 (4th Cir.1983).

This case is REVERSED with respect to the jurisdictional issue and REMANDED with respect to the service of process issue.

REVERSED in part and REMANDED in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

805 F.2d 370, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 34282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernest-william-davis-etc-v-pyrofax-gas-corporation-etc-and-goss-ca11-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack