Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Enfinger v. Baxleygreen2 sentences2012This Court’s holding that where a corporate defendant is subject to suit in the county in which the individual defendant resides, “Section 46.02 cannot be applied to defeat the individual defendant’s venue privilege,” id. at 540-41, has become known as the joint residency rule. 2012Specifically, we address a limitation placed on the selection of venue— known as the joint residency rule — derived from Enfinger v. Baxley, 96 So.2d 538 (Fla.1957), which held that the selection of venue based on residency was limited to the county of residence shared by the individual defendant and the corporate defendant. | 4 | 5 |
Aladdin Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2012The Browns petitioned this Court for review, alleging express and direct conflict with Enfinger, Aladdin Insurance Agency, 687 So.2d at 939 (concluding that the joint residency rule was not applicable because there was “no county of residence which [was] common to all three defendants”); Reliable Electrical Distribution, 382 So.2d at 1288 (concluding that where defendants reside in multiple counties, plaintiff is entitled to choose venue pursuant to section 47.021, Florida Statutes); and Doonan, 114 So.2d at 506 (concluding that Enfinger did not apply where the three defendants did not all sha 2012The Fourth District’s decision expressly and directly conflicts with Aladdin Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Jones, 687 So.2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Reliable Electrical Distribution Co. v. Walter E. | 1 | 1 |
Doonan v. Poolegreen2 sentences2012The Browns petitioned this Court for review, alleging express and direct conflict with Enfinger, Aladdin Insurance Agency, 687 So.2d at 939 (concluding that the joint residency rule was not applicable because there was “no county of residence which [was] common to all three defendants”); Reliable Electrical Distribution, 382 So.2d at 1288 (concluding that where defendants reside in multiple counties, plaintiff is entitled to choose venue pursuant to section 47.021, Florida Statutes); and Doonan, 114 So.2d at 506 (concluding that Enfinger did not apply where the three defendants did not all sha 2012Heller & Co. of Louisiana, Inc., 382 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); and Doonan v. Poole, 114 So.2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959), in which the First, Second, and Third District Courts of Appeal concluded that the joint residency rule was inapplicable to cases in which not all of the defendants shared a common county of residence. | 1 | 1 |
Reliable Electrical Distribution Co. v. Walter E. Heller & Co.green2 sentences2012The Browns petitioned this Court for review, alleging express and direct conflict with Enfinger, Aladdin Insurance Agency, 687 So.2d at 939 (concluding that the joint residency rule was not applicable because there was “no county of residence which [was] common to all three defendants”); Reliable Electrical Distribution, 382 So.2d at 1288 (concluding that where defendants reside in multiple counties, plaintiff is entitled to choose venue pursuant to section 47.021, Florida Statutes); and Doonan, 114 So.2d at 506 (concluding that Enfinger did not apply where the three defendants did not all sha 2012Heller & Co. of Louisiana, Inc., 382 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); and Doonan v. Poole, 114 So.2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959), in which the First, Second, and Third District Courts of Appeal concluded that the joint residency rule was inapplicable to cases in which not all of the defendants shared a common county of residence. | 1 | 1 |
LIFEMARK HOSPITALS v. Roquegreen2 sentences2010See id,, at 540-41; Lifemark Hosps., 727 So.2d at 1078 (holding that the joint residency rule applies “even if one or more codefendants also reside in other counties”). 2010See Lifemark Hosps., 727 So.2d at 1078 . | 1 | 1 |
Carbone v. Value Added Vacations, Inc.green2 sentences2009See Enfinger, 96 So.2d at 539-41 (finding the joint residency rule to apply where both the cause of action and the individual and corporate defendants’ residences were in the same county); Carbone v. Value Added Vacations, Inc., 791 So.2d 1217, 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (stating “venue based on residency is proper only in the county of joint residence”). 2009See Enfinger, 96 So.2d at 539-41 (finding the joint residency rule to apply where both the cause of action and the individual and corporate defendants’ residences were in the same county); Carbone v. Value Added Vacations, Inc., 791 So.2d 1217, 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (stating “venue based on residency is proper only in the county of joint residence”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority
green
2 sentences2012Here, the joint residency rule of Enfinger is based on a serious interpretative error, which resulted in imposing a meaning on the statute that is “unsound in principle.” All ied-Signal, 504 U.S. at 783 , 112 S.Ct. 2251 (quoting Garcia, 469 U.S. at 546 , 105 S.Ct. 1005 ). 2012Here, the joint residency rule of Enfinger is based on a serious interpretative error, which resulted in imposing a meaning on the statute that is “unsound in principle.” All ied-Signal, 504 U.S. at 783 , 112 S.Ct. 2251 (quoting Garcia, 469 U.S. at 546 , 105 S.Ct. 1005 ). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Brown v. NAGELHOUT
green
2 sentences2012We have for review the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Brown v. Nagelhout, 33 So.3d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), which, based on the joint residency rule, affirmed the grant of a motion for a change of venue to the county of residence shared by the individual defendant and one corporate defendant where there was not a county of residence common to all three defendants. 2012We have for review the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Brown v. Nagelhout, 33 So.3d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), which, based on the joint residency rule, affirmed the grant of a motion for a change of venue to the county of residence shared by the individual defendant and one corporate defendant where there was not a county of residence common to all three defendants. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Allied-Signal, Inc. Ex Rel. Bendix Corp. v. Director, Division of Taxation
green
2 sentences2012Here, the joint residency rule of Enfinger is based on a serious interpretative error, which resulted in imposing a meaning on the statute that is “unsound in principle.” All ied-Signal, 504 U.S. at 783 , 112 S.Ct. 2251 (quoting Garcia, 469 U.S. at 546 , 105 S.Ct. 1005 ). 2012Here, the joint residency rule of Enfinger is based on a serious interpretative error, which resulted in imposing a meaning on the statute that is “unsound in principle.” All ied-Signal, 504 U.S. at 783 , 112 S.Ct. 2251 (quoting Garcia, 469 U.S. at 546 , 105 S.Ct. 1005 ). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.