Pomerantz v. Hollowell

502 So. 2d 1314, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 609, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6920
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 24, 1987·No. No. 86-1622·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order denying Pomerantz’s motion to dismiss for improper service. It is well established that nonresident witnesses who voluntarily enter the state to testify in pending litigation are immune from service of process for a reasonable time before and after they testify. Stokes v. Bell, 441 So.2d 146 (Fla. 1983); Lienard v. De Witt, 153 So.2d 302 (Fla.1963); Murphy & Jordan, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 278 So.2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The evidence established that Pomerantz was a resident of Georgia who entered Florida only to provide deposition testimony in a suit wherein he was not a party. As such, he was immune from service when he was served immediately following his deposition.

Reversed.

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

Pomerantz v. Hollowell, 502 So. 2d 1314, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 609, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6920 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

502 So. 2d 1314 (Pomerantz v. Hollowell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Planet Fitness International Franchise v. P JEG-United, LLC
602 F. Supp. 3d 258 (D. New Hampshire, 2022)
In re Marriage of Gonzalez
584 So. 2d 179 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Francini v. INTERN. MARBLE TRADES, INC.
546 So. 2d 777 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)