Ernest William Davis, Etc. v. Pyrofax Gas Corp., Etc., & Goss, Inc., Etc., 805 F.2d 370 (11th Cir. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Ernest William Davis, Etc. v. Pyrofax Gas Corp., Etc., & Goss, Inc., Etc., 805 F.2d 370 (11th Cir. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: A.I.M. International, Inc. v. Battenfeld Extrusions Systems, Inc. (gamd, 1987-08-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" A.I.M. International, Inc. v. Battenfeld Extrusions Systems, Inc.
M.D. Ga. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Pyrofax Gas Corp., 805 F.2d 370 (11th Cir.1986), citing Jim Fox Enterprises, Inc. v. Air France, 664 F.2d 63 (5th Cir.1981) (case remanded to allow plaintiffs to attempt valid service on Air France), and Vorhees, supra. Though Davis involved a Michigan corporation rather than an alien one, the decision indicates a desire to permit plaintiffs the opportunity to effect proper service rather than dismiss the action.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ernest William DAVIS, Etc., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PYROFAX GAS CORPORATION, Etc., and Goss, Inc., Etc., Defendants-Appellees
83-3715.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Dec 3, 1986.
805 F.2d 370
John W. Tanner, P.A., Daytona Beach, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant., William E. Johnson, Robert A. Hannah, Jonathan C. Hollingshead, Orlando, Fla., for defendants-appellees.
Hatchett, Clark, Stafford.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The Florida Supreme Court has answered in the affirmative the question certified by us to that court in this case. For our question and attendant opinion, see 753 F.2d 928 (11th Cir.1985). For the answer by the Supreme Court of Florida and its attendant opinion, see 492 So.2d 1044 (Fla.1986).

The decision by the Florida Supreme Court disposes of the issue of jurisdiction over the two defendants in this case. The second issue on appeal related to the matter of the district court’s dismissal of the complaint for insufficient service of process. That order should have quashed the service of process with leave to amend for proper service. We remand this issue to the district court for treatment in accordance with the holding in Jim Fox Enterprises, Inc. v. Air France, 664 F.2d 63 (5th Cir.1981) (non-binding, and the cases cited therein which are binding.) See also Stanga v. McCormick Shipping Corp., 268 F.2d 544, 554 (5th Cir.1959). See also Vorhees v. Fisher & Krecke, 697 F.2d 574 (4th Cir.1983).

This case is REVERSED with respect to the jurisdictional issue and REMANDED with respect to the service of process issue.

REVERSED in part and REMANDED in part.