Radlin v. Aero Systems Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Radlin v. Aero Systems Inc.

340 So. 2d 1260, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 16134

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 23, 1976

DocketNo. 76-719

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 340 So. 2d 1260 (Radlin v. Aero Systems Inc.) 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

Radlin v. Aero Systems Inc., 340 So. 2d 1260, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 16134 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the person. The sole question is whether or not the appellant had sufficient minimum contact to entitle the appellee (plaintiff) to perfect substituted service of process, pursuant to § 48.181, Fla.Stat.

The appellant has provided this court with a copy of the sworn complaint, the [1261]*1261exchange agreement, plan of reorganization, and release and acknowledgement of warranty payable. These documents, along with the order appealed, constitute the entire record on appeal. The court was not provided with a copy of the motion to dismiss. The complaint and documents related to a corporate stock exchange. The appellant was a party to these contracts in Florida, visited the area relative to the business of the corporations, executed subsequent modification contracts. These were all for his pecuniary benefit.

Therefore, it would appear that the order under review should be affirmed on the authority of McCarthy v. Little River Bank and Trust Company, 224 So.2d 338 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1969); DeVaney v. Rumsch, 228 So.2d 904 (Fla.1969); 4th Dimension Interiors, Inc. v. Decorator Services, Ltd., 256 So.2d 571 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1972); Elmex Corporation v. Atlantic Federal Savings & Loan Association of Fort Lauderdale, 325 So.2d 58 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1976).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the person. The sole question is whether or not the appellant had sufficient minimum contact to entitle the appellee (plaintiff) to perfect substituted service of process, pursuant to § 48.181, Fla.Stat.

The appellant has provided this court with a copy of the sworn complaint, the [1261]*1261exchange agreement, plan of reorganization, and release and acknowledgement of warranty payable. These documents, along with the order appealed, constitute the entire record on appeal. The court was not provided with a copy of the motion to dismiss. The complaint and documents related to a corporate stock exchange. The appellant was a party to these contracts in Florida, visited the area relative to the business of the corporations, executed subsequent modification contracts. These were all for his pecuniary benefit.

Therefore, it would appear that the order under review should be affirmed on the authority of McCarthy v. Little River Bank and Trust Company, 224 So.2d 338 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1969); DeVaney v. Rumsch, 228 So.2d 904 (Fla.1969); 4th Dimension Interiors, Inc. v. Decorator Services, Ltd., 256 So.2d 571 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1972); Elmex Corporation v. Atlantic Federal Savings & Loan Association of Fort Lauderdale, 325 So.2d 58 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1976).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 So. 2d 1260, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 16134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/radlin-v-aero-systems-inc-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack