Ross v. De Oliveira

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ross v. De Oliveira

397 So. 2d 386, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19296

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 21, 1981

DocketNo. 80-1865

StatusPublished

This text of 397 So. 2d 386 (Ross v. De Oliveira) 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

Ross v. De Oliveira, 397 So. 2d 386, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19296 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order of dismissal under review is affirmed with one modification. That portion of the above order dismissing the instant action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is stricken as, in our view, the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of this cause. See e. g., Art. V, § 5(b), Fla. Const.; §§ 26.012(2)(a), 34.01, Fla.Stat. (1979). In all other respects, the order under review is affirmed although we interpret the instant dismissal to be without prejudice to the plaintiff to attempt, if it chooses, re-service of the defendant under Sections 48.193(l)(g), 48.194, Fla.Stat. (1979), so as to secure personal jurisdiction over the defendant and thereby reactivate the present action. See e. g., Bradford White Corp. v. Aetna Insurance Co., 372 So.2d 994 (Fla.3d DCA 1979).

Affirmed as modified.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order of dismissal under review is affirmed with one modification. That portion of the above order dismissing the instant action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is stricken as, in our view, the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of this cause. See e. g., Art. V, § 5(b), Fla. Const.; §§ 26.012(2)(a), 34.01, Fla.Stat. (1979). In all other respects, the order under review is affirmed although we interpret the instant dismissal to be without prejudice to the plaintiff to attempt, if it chooses, re-service of the defendant under Sections 48.193(l)(g), 48.194, Fla.Stat. (1979), so as to secure personal jurisdiction over the defendant and thereby reactivate the present action. See e. g., Bradford White Corp. v. Aetna Insurance Co., 372 So.2d 994 (Fla.3d DCA 1979).

Affirmed as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

397 So. 2d 386, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-de-oliveira-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack