Fashion Two Twenty, Inc. v. Ralph & Reba, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fashion Two Twenty, Inc. v. Ralph & Reba, Inc.

254 So. 2d 49, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5684

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 19, 1971

DocketNos. 71-983, 71-984

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 254 So. 2d 49 (Fashion Two Twenty, Inc. v. Ralph & Reba, Inc.) 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.

Bluebook

Fashion Two Twenty, Inc. v. Ralph & Reba, Inc., 254 So. 2d 49, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5684 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PEARSON, Judge.

These interlocutory appeals are from an order denying defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and an order denying a motion for rehearing addressed to the same order. The suit was brought by a franchisee against its franchisor. The question presented is whether a franchisor who is not and has not been physically present in this state can be said to be doing business in the state where the franchisor exerts control over the franchisee and others so that the franchise is breached.

We affirm the finding of the trial judge that appellant was doing business in this state within the meaning of F.S. § 48.181, F.S.A. See Woodring v. Crown Engineering Co., Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 816. See also DiGiovanni v. Gittelson, Fla.App.1965, 181 So.2d 195, and Reader’s Digest Ass’n, v. State Ex Rel. Conner, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 552, where this court distinguished Fawcett Publications, Inc. v. Rand, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 512.

Affirmed.

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

PEARSON, Judge.

These interlocutory appeals are from an order denying defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and an order denying a motion for rehearing addressed to the same order. The suit was brought by a franchisee against its franchisor. The question presented is whether a franchisor who is not and has not been physically present in this state can be said to be doing business in the state where the franchisor exerts control over the franchisee and others so that the franchise is breached.

We affirm the finding of the trial judge that appellant was doing business in this state within the meaning of F.S. § 48.181, F.S.A. See Woodring v. Crown Engineering Co., Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 816. See also DiGiovanni v. Gittelson, Fla.App.1965, 181 So.2d 195, and Reader’s Digest Ass’n, v. State Ex Rel. Conner, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 552, where this court distinguished Fawcett Publications, Inc. v. Rand, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 512.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 So. 2d 49, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fashion-two-twenty-inc-v-ralph-reba-inc-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack