Lee v. Hytten

634 So. 2d 326, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3392, 1994 WL 123608
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 12, 1994·No. No. 93-2362·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. § 48.193(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1991); See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2181, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 540 (1985); Flynt Distrib. Co. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389 (9th Cir.1984); Duke v. Young, 496 So.2d 37 (Ala.1986); Doe v. Thompson, 620 So.2d 1004, 1006 n. 1 (Fla.1993) and cases collected; Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla.1989); [327]*327Martin v. Ju-li Corp., 332 N.W.2d 871 (Iowa 1983).

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

Lee v. Hytten, 634 So. 2d 326, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3392, 1994 WL 123608 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

634 So. 2d 326 (Lee v. Hytten) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Duke v. Young
496 So. 2d 37 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1986)
Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais
554 So. 2d 499 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1989)
Doe v. Thompson
620 So. 2d 1004 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1993)
Martin v. Ju-Li Corp.
332 N.W.2d 871 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1983)