Honig v. Klein

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Honig v. Klein

184 So. 2d 505, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5697

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 29, 1966

DocketNo. 66-32

StatusPublished

This text of 184 So. 2d 505 (Honig v. Klein) 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

Honig v. Klein, 184 So. 2d 505, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5697 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This interlocutory appeal presents for our determination the question of whether or not jurisdiction has been had by the trial court over the person of the defendant. Defendant was served under the provisions of §§ 47.16(1) and 47.30, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

The orders appealed hold that the plaintiff has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, and that plaintiff’s motion for default against the defendant, individually be denied.

Our review of the record and the law ¹ leads us to the conclusion that the trial judge erred in the entry of the orders appealed. It is our view that the defendant, Klein, is amenable to substituted service by virtue of the provisions of § 47.16(1), supra, and that the plaintiff complied with the essential procedural steps prescribed by § 47.30, supra.

Accordingly the orders appealed are reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

This interlocutory appeal presents for our determination the question of whether or not jurisdiction has been had by the trial court over the person of the defendant. Defendant was served under the provisions of §§ 47.16(1) and 47.30, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

The orders appealed hold that the plaintiff has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, and that plaintiff’s motion for default against the defendant, individually be denied.

Our review of the record and the law ¹ leads us to the conclusion that the trial judge erred in the entry of the orders appealed. It is our view that the defendant, Klein, is amenable to substituted service by virtue of the provisions of § 47.16(1), supra, and that the plaintiff complied with the essential procedural steps prescribed by § 47.30, supra.

Accordingly the orders appealed are reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 So. 2d 505, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/honig-v-klein-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack