ESTELA v. CAVALCANTI
Jose Luis Estela, Appellant,
v.
Roberto Cavalcanti, Appellee.
Case No. 3D11-2208.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Opinion filed December 21, 2011.
Jose Luis Estela ("Estela") appeals a non-final order denying his motion to quash service and to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We reverse and remand with directions to quash service of process.
After filing an amended complaint against three named defendants, including Estela, Roberto Cavalcanti ("Cavalcanti") made several failed attempts to personally serve Estela at his last known address in Key Biscayne. In an effort to locate Estela, Cavalcanti ordered a skip trace, which revealed that Estela owned homesteaded property in Miami Beach. Cavalcanti attempted to serve Estela at the Miami Beach address, but his attempts were unsuccessful.
Read the rest of the case here:
ESTELA v. CAVALCANTI
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Bedard says legal issue didn't distract him
chron.com - September 21, 2011
BOSTON (AP) — Erik Bedard says legal papers given him by a process server wearing a Yankees shirt before a poor outing weren't a distraction.
The Boston left-hander allowed four runs in 2 2-3 innings in Baltimore's 7-5 win on Tuesday night. Bedard pitched after being served with papers seeking increased child support.
Read the rest of the story:
Bedard says legal issue didn't distract him
BOSTON (AP) — Erik Bedard says legal papers given him by a process server wearing a Yankees shirt before a poor outing weren't a distraction.
The Boston left-hander allowed four runs in 2 2-3 innings in Baltimore's 7-5 win on Tuesday night. Bedard pitched after being served with papers seeking increased child support.
Read the rest of the story:
Bedard says legal issue didn't distract him
Saturday, August 27, 2011
BSY's advance bail plea hangs in balance
TimesofIndia.com - Aug 27, 2011
BANGALORE: It was a so-near-yet-so-far situation for beleaguered former chief minister BS Yeddyurappa. Though the high court heard at length one of his anticipatory bail petitions, it could not pass any orders due to paucity of time.
Consequently Yeddyurappa has to appear before the special court, either personally or through an advocate, when the case comes up on Saturday.
Even as senior advocate UU Lalit, who appeared on behalf of Yeddyurappa, prayed for an interim order as his his client was required to appear before the Lokayukta court on Saturday, Justice L Narayanaswamy refused to grant that prayer saying that he would like to pass a detailed final order on Monday.
Read the rest of the story:
BSY's advance bail plea hangs in balance
BANGALORE: It was a so-near-yet-so-far situation for beleaguered former chief minister BS Yeddyurappa. Though the high court heard at length one of his anticipatory bail petitions, it could not pass any orders due to paucity of time.
Consequently Yeddyurappa has to appear before the special court, either personally or through an advocate, when the case comes up on Saturday.
Even as senior advocate UU Lalit, who appeared on behalf of Yeddyurappa, prayed for an interim order as his his client was required to appear before the Lokayukta court on Saturday, Justice L Narayanaswamy refused to grant that prayer saying that he would like to pass a detailed final order on Monday.
Read the rest of the story:
BSY's advance bail plea hangs in balance
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Ghana MPs enjoy immunity from service of process and arrest
allafrica.com 7/14/11
According to the Minority Leader, Ghana MPs enjoy immunity from service of process and arrest, as stated in Articles 117 and 118 (2) of the 1992 Constitution ahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifnd was, therefore, surprised why the A-G boycotted the Constitution and went ahead to order the arrest of Mr. Akyea. "That is most unfortunate," he argued.
Read the rest of the story here:
Ghana MPs enjoy immunity from service of process and arrest
According to the Minority Leader, Ghana MPs enjoy immunity from service of process and arrest, as stated in Articles 117 and 118 (2) of the 1992 Constitution ahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifnd was, therefore, surprised why the A-G boycotted the Constitution and went ahead to order the arrest of Mr. Akyea. "That is most unfortunate," he argued.
Read the rest of the story here:
Ghana MPs enjoy immunity from service of process and arrest
Friday, July 1, 2011
Supreme Court limits personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants
Jones Day - lexology.com
Meir Feder and Eric E. Murphy - July 1 2011
On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a pair of important decisions limiting state courts' personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants, Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, No. 10-76 (U.S. June 27, 2011), and J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, No. 09-1343 (U.S. June 27, 2011). The Court addressed the two basic categories of personal jurisdiction—general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction—and endorsed narrower limits on both than have been applied by many lower courts. The general jurisdiction decision, Goodyear, significantly clarified what has been a murky legal standard, and did so in a way that presents significant new opportunities for corporations to avoid jurisdiction in improper forums. In the specific jurisdiction case, McIntyre, the Court's inability to agree on a majority opinion injected additional confusion into an already unsettled area.
Read the rest of the story here:
Supreme Court limits personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants
Meir Feder and Eric E. Murphy - July 1 2011
On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a pair of important decisions limiting state courts' personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants, Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, No. 10-76 (U.S. June 27, 2011), and J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, No. 09-1343 (U.S. June 27, 2011). The Court addressed the two basic categories of personal jurisdiction—general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction—and endorsed narrower limits on both than have been applied by many lower courts. The general jurisdiction decision, Goodyear, significantly clarified what has been a murky legal standard, and did so in a way that presents significant new opportunities for corporations to avoid jurisdiction in improper forums. In the specific jurisdiction case, McIntyre, the Court's inability to agree on a majority opinion injected additional confusion into an already unsettled area.
Read the rest of the story here:
Supreme Court limits personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)