Legal Opinion

Jamil v. Acosta

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 13, 1997No. 96-3494PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

We conclude that the allegations in the second amended complaint were insufficient to authorize substituted service of process upon the nonresident appellant through the secretary of state, pursuant to sections 48.161 and 48.181, Florida Statutes (1989). See Caribe & Panama Invs., S.A. v. Christensen, 375 So.2d 601, 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Hartman Agency, Inc. v. Indiana Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 353 So.2d 665, 666 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978); see also McDougal v. Mizrahi, 636 So.2d 138, 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (no basis for asserting personal jurisdiction over nonresidents absent sufficient allegations…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. CARIBE & PANAMA INVS. v. ChristensenDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1979
  2. HARTMAN AGCY., INC. v. Indiana Farmers Mut. Ins. Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1978
  3. McDougal v. MizrahiDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
  4. Tako v. Mayer Rothkopf Industries, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1980

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Berne v. BeznosDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API