Klukewich v. Howenstine

Supreme Court of Florida

Klukewich v. Howenstine

522 So. 2d 842, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 462, 1988 WL 34017

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 1988

DocketNo. 70922

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 522 So. 2d 842 (Klukewich v. Howenstine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Klukewich v. Howenstine, 522 So. 2d 842, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 462, 1988 WL 34017 (Fla. 1988).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We have before us this petition to review Klukewich v. Howenstine, 508 So.2d 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Because that decision is in direct and express conflict with Bell v. Tuffnell, 418 So.2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 427 So.2d 736 (Fla.1983), we have jurisdiction. Art. Y, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We approve the decision of the third district.

The issue raised in this appeal is whether an allegation of paternity and child support obligation is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction under this state’s long-arm statute, section 48.193(l)(e), Florida Statutes, over a putative father who has left the state. We have recently resolved this issue in favor of the father in Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Wright, 522 So.2d 838 (Fla.1988). Because of our resolution of that case, we approve the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal.

It is so ordered.

MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and GRIMES, JJ., concur. KOGAN, J., dissents with an opinion in which BARKETT, J., concurs.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have before us this petition to review Klukewich v. Howenstine, 508 So.2d 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Because that decision is in direct and express conflict with Bell v. Tuffnell, 418 So.2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 427 So.2d 736 (Fla.1983), we have jurisdiction. Art. Y, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We approve the decision of the third district.

The issue raised in this appeal is whether an allegation of paternity and child support obligation is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction under this state’s long-arm statute, section 48.193(l)(e), Florida Statutes, over a putative father who has left the state. We have recently resolved this issue in favor of the father in Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Wright, 522 So.2d 838 (Fla.1988). Because of our resolution of that case, we approve the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal.

It is so ordered.

MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and GRIMES, JJ., concur. KOGAN, J., dissents with an opinion in which BARKETT, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 So. 2d 842, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 462, 1988 WL 34017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klukewich-v-howenstine-fla-1988.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack