Urban v. Venne

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Urban v. Venne

595 So. 2d 1108, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3972, 1992 WL 61320

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 31, 1992

DocketNo. 91-3018

StatusPublished

This text of 595 So. 2d 1108 (Urban v. Venne) 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

Urban v. Venne, 595 So. 2d 1108, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3972, 1992 WL 61320 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The issues presented in this case are the same ones we addressed in the companion case of Patterson v. Venne, 594 So.2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992): (1) Whether a nonresident person who is impleaded in a proceeding supplementary pursuant to section 56.29, Florida Statutes (1989), may be compelled to appear in Dade County for discovery where there is otherwise no basis for long-arm jurisdiction, and (2) whether venue was proper in Dade County for proceedings supplemental after the underlying action was concluded. Again, we hold, as we did in Patterson, that the plaintiff may obtain discovery from the impleaded person, but that the discovery proceeding must be in the impleaded person’s place of residence. As in Patterson, we also hold that the challenge to venue is without merit.

Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

The issues presented in this case are the same ones we addressed in the companion case of Patterson v. Venne, 594 So.2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992): (1) Whether a nonresident person who is impleaded in a proceeding supplementary pursuant to section 56.29, Florida Statutes (1989), may be compelled to appear in Dade County for discovery where there is otherwise no basis for long-arm jurisdiction, and (2) whether venue was proper in Dade County for proceedings supplemental after the underlying action was concluded. Again, we hold, as we did in Patterson, that the plaintiff may obtain discovery from the impleaded person, but that the discovery proceeding must be in the impleaded person’s place of residence. As in Patterson, we also hold that the challenge to venue is without merit.

Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

595 So. 2d 1108, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3972, 1992 WL 61320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/urban-v-venne-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack