Tenburg v. North American International Marine Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tenburg v. North American International Marine Co.

571 So. 2d 584, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9756, 1990 WL 211744

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 28, 1990

DocketNo. 90-0780

StatusPublished

This text of 571 So. 2d 584 (Tenburg v. North American International Marine Co.) 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

Tenburg v. North American International Marine Co., 571 So. 2d 584, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9756, 1990 WL 211744 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

REVERSED. We conclude that the trial court erred in determining that the appellant had failed to allege and demonstrate that the appellee had sufficient connection with the state of Florida to authorize Florida courts to exercise jurisdiction over the appellee. See Lacy v. Force V Corp., 403 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

The appellants’ action as alleged involves an agreement entered into in Florida, contemplating services and sales in Florida, and directly involving the transfer of stock in a Florida corporation. We believe these circumstances are sufficient to demonstrate jurisdiction under Section 48.-193(l)(g), Florida Statutes (1989), and to put the appellee on notice that it should reasonably anticipate being brought before a Florida court if legal disputes arise out of these circumstances.

ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN JJ., and OFTEDAL, RICHARD L., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

REVERSED. We conclude that the trial court erred in determining that the appellant had failed to allege and demonstrate that the appellee had sufficient connection with the state of Florida to authorize Florida courts to exercise jurisdiction over the appellee. See Lacy v. Force V Corp., 403 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

The appellants’ action as alleged involves an agreement entered into in Florida, contemplating services and sales in Florida, and directly involving the transfer of stock in a Florida corporation. We believe these circumstances are sufficient to demonstrate jurisdiction under Section 48.-193(l)(g), Florida Statutes (1989), and to put the appellee on notice that it should reasonably anticipate being brought before a Florida court if legal disputes arise out of these circumstances.

ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN JJ., and OFTEDAL, RICHARD L., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 So. 2d 584, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9756, 1990 WL 211744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tenburg-v-north-american-international-marine-co-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack