JCB, Inc. v. Herman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

JCB, Inc. v. Herman

562 So. 2d 754, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3357, 1990 WL 62826

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 15, 1990

DocketNo. 90-27

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 562 So. 2d 754 (JCB, Inc. v. Herman) 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

JCB, Inc. v. Herman, 562 So. 2d 754, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3357, 1990 WL 62826 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, Phillip Stuart Herman, sued appellant, JCB, Inc., for personal injuries allegedly sustained from a defective piece of machinery manufactured by appellant. Appellant sought dismissal based on a lack of personal jurisdiction and ineffective service of process. The trial court ruled that: (1) appellee’s complaint adequately and properly alleged a basis for long arm jurisdiction under section 48.193, Florida Statutes (1989); and (2) that the service effected on appellant gave the court jurisdiction over appellant. We affirm.

Depending upon the facts, a single transaction by an out-of-state defendant may be enough to exercise jurisdiction over him in Florida. Yale Industrial Products, Inc. v. Gulfstream Galvanizing & Finishing, Inc., 481 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). “A manufacturer who sells a piece of machinery in Florida can hardly take the position that he could not reasonably anticipate being hailed into a Florida court_” A.J. [755]*755Sackett and Sons Company v. Frey, 462 So.2d 98 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, Phillip Stuart Herman, sued appellant, JCB, Inc., for personal injuries allegedly sustained from a defective piece of machinery manufactured by appellant. Appellant sought dismissal based on a lack of personal jurisdiction and ineffective service of process. The trial court ruled that: (1) appellee’s complaint adequately and properly alleged a basis for long arm jurisdiction under section 48.193, Florida Statutes (1989); and (2) that the service effected on appellant gave the court jurisdiction over appellant. We affirm.

Depending upon the facts, a single transaction by an out-of-state defendant may be enough to exercise jurisdiction over him in Florida. Yale Industrial Products, Inc. v. Gulfstream Galvanizing & Finishing, Inc., 481 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). “A manufacturer who sells a piece of machinery in Florida can hardly take the position that he could not reasonably anticipate being hailed into a Florida court_” A.J. [755]*755Sackett and Sons Company v. Frey, 462 So.2d 98 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

562 So. 2d 754, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3357, 1990 WL 62826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jcb-inc-v-herman-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack