Smith v. Cuban Am. Nat'l Found., 657 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Smith v. Cuban Am. Nat'l Found., 657 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Orville Smith v. Alexandra Smith (fladistctapp, 2026-03-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Orville Smith v. Alexandra Smith
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Nat’l Found., 657 So. 2d 86, 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Douglas Frantin v. MVS Media Group, LLC
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Nat’l Found., 657 So. 2d 86, 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (noting “the affidavit filed by the [party] below asserts no personal knowledge, only inadmissible hearsay”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Price v. Kronenberger
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Nat’l Found., 657 So.2d 86, 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (personal jurisdiction properly exercised over nonresident defendant who allegedly made defamatory statements about a Florida resident in an interview that occurred in Washington D.C., where it was foreseeable that the documentary containing the interview would be, and was, aired in Florida).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Emerson v. Cole
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
In Godfrey v. Neumann, 373 So.2d 920, 922 (Fla.1979), the Florida Supreme Court held that "by committing a tort in Florida a nonresident establishes sufficient `minimum contacts' with Florida to justify the acquisition of in personam jurisdiction over him." In Smith v. Cuban American National Foundation, 657 So.2d 86, 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant was based on the defendant's commission of a tort in Florida "by making certain allegedly defamatory statements in a televised interview conducted in Washington, D.C. for a PBS documentary film under circum…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Krilich v. Wolcott
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
Nat’l Found., 657 So.2d 86, 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wayne SMITH, Appellant,
v.
CUBAN AMERICAN NATIONAL FOUNDATION, Appellee.
94-2835.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jul 19, 1995.
657 So. 2d 86
Schwartz, C.J., and Hubbart and Nesbitt.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

Alfredo G. Duran, Miami, for appellant.

G. Luis Dominguez, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and NESBITT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant Wayne Smith from a non-final trial court order denying his pretrial motion to quash service of process and dismiss the complaint filed below in a defamation action, based on the ground of no personal jurisdiction over the defendant. We affirm.

First, we reject the defendant's contention that the assertion of in personam jurisdiction over the defendant, a non-resident of Florida, violated the defendant's due process rights. The defendant prima facie committed a defamatory tort in this state by making certain allegedly defamatory statements in a televised interview conducted in Washington, D.C. for a PBS documentary film under circumstances in which it was entirely foreseeable that the subject film would be aired in Florida, which in fact it was. Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510, 1515 (11th Cir.1990); Madera v. Hall, 717 F. Supp. 812, 817 (S.D.Fla. 1989). Consequently, the defendant was amenable to suit in Florida under Section 48.193(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), as he prima facie committed a tort in Florida. Moreover, it is settled that "by committing a tort in Florida a nonresident [defendant] establishes sufficient `minimum contacts' with Florida to justify the acquisition of in personam jurisdiction over him by personally serving him outside the state." Godfrey v. Neumann, 373 So.2d 920, 922 (Fla. 1979).

[*87] Second, we reject the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's motion to quash service of process. The return of service filed in this cause clearly establishes that the defendant was properly served under Section 48.031(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993); and, contrary to the defendant's argument, the affidavit filed by the defendant below asserts no personal knowledge, only inadmissible hearsay, to controvert the return of service. This being so, there was no necessity to conduct an evidentiary hearing as the unrefuted return of service was sufficient to establish that the service of process was entirely proper in this case. Florida Nat'l Bank v. Halphen, 641 So.2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Jefferson Bank & Trust v. Levy, 498 So.2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So.2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

Affirmed.