Dombroff v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.

Decision Date12 June 1984
Docket NumberNo. 83-2276,EAGLE-PICHER,83-2276
PartiesEileen DOMBROFF, Personal Representative of the Estate and Survivors of Stanley Dombroff, Deceased, Appellant, v.INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Baron & Associates and Jane N. Saginaw, Dallas, Tex., Louis S. Robles, Miami, for appellant.

Kimbrell, Hamann, Jennings, Womack, Carlson & Kniskern and Michael K. McLemore, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The final summary judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings upon a holding that: (1) the trial court acquired personal jurisdiction over the defendant corporation herein under Section 48.081(3), Florida Statutes (1981), because: (a) the said corporate defendant was qualified to do business in Florida, and (b) the corporate defendant's designated resident agent was served in Dade County, Florida; Cassidy v. Ice Queen International, Inc., 390 So.2d 465 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Junction Bit & Tool Co. v. Institutional Mortgage Co., 240 So.2d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); (2) this result is not changed by the fact that the cause of action sued upon: (a) does not arise from business activities conducted by the defendant corporation in Florida, Confederation of Canada Life Insurance Co. v. Vega y Arminan, 144 So.2d 805 (Fla.1962); Killingsworth v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 327 So.2d 50 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Crown Colony Club, Ltd. v. Honecker, 307 So.2d 889, 891 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 320 So.2d 392 (Fla.1975); Junction Bit & Tool Co. v. Institutional Mortgage Co., supra at 881, and (b) arises from the defendant's business activities in the state of Maryland prior to designating its resident agent in Florida, although accruing for statute of limitations purposes subsequent thereto; see Confederation of Canada Life Insurance Co. v. Vega y Arminan, supra; Copeland v. Armstrong Cork Co., 447 So.2d 923, 924 (Fla.3d DCA 1984); Brown v. Armstrong World Industries, 441 So.2d 1098 (Fla.3d DCA 1983), and (3) for purposes of this case, we assume without deciding that the issue of personal jurisdiction over the defendant corporation herein was properly before the trial court for a ruling on the merits; but cf. Miller v. Marriner, 403 So.2d 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

Reversed and remanded.

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Sternberg v. O'Neil
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • July 25, 1988
    ...Oil Co., 276 F.Supp. 1008, 1012 (D.D.C.1967); Goldman v. Pre-Fab Transit Co., 520 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.Ct.App.1975); Dombroff v. Eagle-Picher Indus., 450 So.2d 923 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.), petition for review denied, 458 So.2d 272 (1984); Anderson v. United States, 220 F.Supp. 769 (E.D.Pa.1963); Cowa......
  • Hobbs v. Don Mealey Chevrolet, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 23, 1994
    ...See Ranger Nationwide, Inc. v. Cook, 519 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 531 So.2d 167 (Fla.1988); Dombroff v. Eagle-Picher Industries, 450 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 458 So.2d 272 (Fla.1984); Junction Bit & Tool Co. v. Institutional Mortgage Co., 240 So.2d 879 (Fla. 4th D......
  • White v. Pepsico, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • September 6, 1990
    ...of the due process clause is fully satisfied. Junction Bit, 240 So.2d at 882. See also Rose's Stores, Inc.; Dombroff v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 450 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 458 So.2d 272 For the foregoing reasons, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and tra......
  • Woodruff-Sawyer & Co. v. Ghilotti
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 29, 2018
    ...general jurisdiction.6 Cherry, 526 So.2d 749, is one of a number of similarly situated cases. See, e.g., Dombroff v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 450 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) ; Ranger Nationwide, Inc. v. Cook, 519 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) ; and Junction Bit & Tool Co. v. Institutiona......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT