Leatherwood v. Royal Oaks Rentals
473 So. 2d 721, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1153, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13874
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 8, 1985·No. Nos. 84-677, 84-679·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING/CLARIFICATION
We withdraw our per curiam affirmance of December 19, 1984, and reverse the order quashing service on Royal Oaks Rentals. A motion alleging a defect in personal jurisdiction should set forth sufficient facts to demonstrate the defect in service and how the defect can be cured. See Bodden v. Young, 422 So.2d 1055, 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Over 30 Association v. Blatt, 118 So.2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960).
We remand for further proceedings below.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Leatherwood v. Royal Oaks Rentals, 473 So. 2d 721, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1153, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13874 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).
473 So. 2d 721 (Leatherwood v. Royal Oaks Rentals) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
McCray v. Adams
529 So. 2d 1131 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Carlini v. STATE, DEPT. OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
521 So. 2d 254 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)