Rose v. North Am. Van Lines, 133 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Rose v. North Am. Van Lines, 133 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Yelp, Inc. v. Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, No. 140242 (Va. Apr. 16, 2015)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 920 The long-arm statute does not extend the subpoena power of a Florida court to command the in-state attendance of a non- resident, non-party person or entity, or compel that person or entity to produce documents.1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • Yelp, Inc. v. Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, No. 140242 (Va. Apr. 16, 2015).published 3 cites
    (The long-arm statute does not extend the subpoena power of a Florida court to command the in-state attendance of a non- resident, non-party person or entity, or compel that person or entity to produce documents.)
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
James ROSE
v.
NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES
No. SC07-2432.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 14, 2009.
Published opinion
133 So. 3d 914
2009 WL 1324044
2009 Fla. LEXIS 786
Jay M. Levy of Jay M. Levy, P.A., Miami, FL, for Petitioner., Jerry K. McKim of Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, and Carson, LLP, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondent.
Canady, Labarga, Lewis, Pariente, Perry, Polston, Quince.
Published
PER CURIAM.

We have for review Rose v. North American Van Lines, 969 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), in which the First District Court of Appeal cited as authority its decision in Flamily v. City of Orlando, 924 So.2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), quashed sub nom. Sanders v. City of Orlando, 997 So.2d 1089 (Fla.2008). At the time the First District issued its Rose decision, Flamily was pending review in this Court (having been restyled Sanders v. City of Orlando due to petitioner’s death and the substitution of the personal representative of his estate). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).

We stayed proceedings in . this case pending our disposition of Sanders, in which we ultimately quashed the First District’s underlying Flamily decision. See Sanders v. City of Orlando, 997 So.2d 1089 (Fla.2008). We then issued an order directing respondents in the present case to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision under review, and remand for reconsideration in light of our Sanders decision. Respondents concede in their response that they have no reason to contest such action by this Court.

We thus grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the First District for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Sanders.

It is so ordered.

QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.