48.193
Acts subjecting person to jurisdiction of courts of state.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
48.193 Acts subjecting person to jurisdiction of courts of state.—
(1)(a) A person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby submits himself or herself and, if he or she is a natural person, his or her personal representative to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause of action arising from any of the following acts:
1. Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture in this state or having an office or agency in this state.
2. Committing a tortious act within this state.
3. Owning, using, possessing, or holding a mortgage or other lien on any real property within this state.
4. Contracting to insure a person, property, or risk located within this state at the time of contracting.
5. With respect to a proceeding for alimony, child support, or division of property in connection with an action to dissolve a marriage or with respect to an independent action for support of dependents, maintaining a matrimonial domicile in this state at the time of the commencement of this action or, if the defendant resided in this state preceding the commencement of the action, whether cohabiting during that time or not. This paragraph does not change the residency requirement for filing an action for dissolution of marriage.
6. Causing injury to persons or property within this state arising out of an act or omission by the defendant outside this state, if, at or about the time of the injury, either:
a. The defendant was engaged in solicitation or service activities within this state; or
b. Products, materials, or things processed, serviced, or manufactured by the defendant anywhere were used or consumed within this state in the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use.
7. Breaching a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state.
8. With respect to a proceeding for paternity, engaging in the act of sexual intercourse within this state with respect to which a child may have been conceived.
9. Entering into a contract that complies with s. 685.102.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, an order issued, or a penalty or fine imposed, by an agency of another state is not enforceable against any person or entity incorporated or having its principal place of business in this state if the other state does not provide a mandatory right of review of the agency decision in a state court of competent jurisdiction.
(2) A defendant who is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this state, whether such activity is wholly interstate, intrastate, or otherwise, is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, whether or not the claim arises from that activity.
(3) Service of process upon any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as provided in this section may be made by personally serving the process upon the defendant outside this state, as provided in s. 48.194. The service shall have the same effect as if it had been personally served within this state.
(4) If a defendant in his or her pleadings demands affirmative relief on causes of action unrelated to the transaction forming the basis of the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant shall thereafter in that action be subject to the jurisdiction of the court for any cause of action, regardless of its basis, which the plaintiff may by amendment assert against the defendant.
(5) Nothing contained in this section limits or affects the right to serve any process in any other manner now or hereinafter provided by law.
History.—s. 1, ch. 73-179; s. 3, ch. 84-2; s. 3, ch. 88-176; s. 3, ch. 93-250; s. 281, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 2013-164; s. 2, ch. 2016-207.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,386
cases (313 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Wendt v. Horowitz
Wendt v. Horowitz (2002)
“[7] See § 48.193(1) (stating that "[a]ny person .”
Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall (2010)
“The website promises to contact individual consumers with certain information (“We will contact you if a lawsuit is being considered or has been filed which you may want to be a party to”), e-mail victims to contact other victims and attorneys interested in pursuing class action…”
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985)
“Fla. Stat. § 48.193 (1)(g) (Supp. 1984). The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, sitting in diversity, relied on this provision in exercising personal jurisdiction over a Michigan resident who allegedly had breached a franchise agreement with a…”
Leon v. Cont'l AG (2017)
“Fla. Stat. § 48.193 (1)(a)(1). 2. Committing a tortious act within [Florida] Fla.”
Banco De Los Trabajadores v. Cortez Moreno (2018)
“Procedural Background In addition to pleading these case-specific facts, Cortez’s second amended complaint also tracked the statutory language of the relevant portions of Florida’s long-arm jurisdiction statute (section 48.193 of the Florida Statutes (2015)).”
Caiazzo v. American Royal Arts Corp. (2011)
“Section 48.193, Florida Statutes, is Florida’s long-arm statute and addresses both specific and general jurisdiction.”
Gubarev v. Buzzfeed, Inc. (2017)
“In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants argue that this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendants because: (1) there is no’ statutory basis for exercising personal jurisdiction pursuant to Florida’s long-arm statute, Fla. Stat. § 48.193 , and (2) exercising…”
Goltv, Inc. v. Fox Sports Latin America Ltd. (2017)
“See Fla. Stat. §§ 48.193 (1)-(2). The Amended Complaint asserts only-specific personal jurisdiction over- Conme-bol and Full Play.”
Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais (1989)
“In essence, the court below held that the requisite minimum contacts are built into section 48.193. Otherwise, the statute would be held unconstitutional.”
Acquadro v. Bergeron (2003)
“Section 48.193 does not, as petitioners argue, distinguish among the universe of possible torts.”
General Cigar Holdings, Inc. v. Altadis, S.A. (2002)
“§ 48.193, Fla.Stat. (2002). The statute provides in relevant part: (1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby submits himself or herself .”
MeterLogic, Inc. v. Copier Solutions, Inc. (2000)
“Jurisdiction must exist under Florida’s long arm statute (Fla.Stat. § 48.193) and under Fourteenth Amendment due process analysis.”
— 48.193(1) — 147 cases
Caiazzo v. American Royal Arts Corp. (2011)
“Section 48.193, Florida Statutes, is Florida’s long-arm statute and addresses both specific and general jurisdiction.”
Acquadro v. Bergeron (2003)
“Section 48.193 does not, as petitioners argue, distinguish among the universe of possible torts.”
Wendt v. Horowitz (2002)
“[7] See § 48.193(1) (stating that "[a]ny person .”
Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall (2010)
“The website promises to contact individual consumers with certain information (“We will contact you if a lawsuit is being considered or has been filed which you may want to be a party to”), e-mail victims to contact other victims and attorneys interested in pursuing class action…”
— 48.193(1)(6)(b) — 1 case
— 48.193(1)(A)(1) — 1 case
— 48.193(1)(a) — 217 cases
Wendt v. Horowitz (2002)
“[7] See § 48.193(1) (stating that "[a]ny person .”
Banco De Los Trabajadores v. Cortez Moreno (2018)
“Procedural Background In addition to pleading these case-specific facts, Cortez’s second amended complaint also tracked the statutory language of the relevant portions of Florida’s long-arm jurisdiction statute (section 48.193 of the Florida Statutes (2015)).”
— 48.193(1)(a)(1) — 65 cases
Abdo v. Abdo (2018)
Leon v. Cont'l AG (2017)
“Fla. Stat. § 48.193 (1)(a)(1). 2. Committing a tortious act within [Florida] Fla.”
Banco De Los Trabajadores v. Cortez Moreno (2018)
“Procedural Background In addition to pleading these case-specific facts, Cortez’s second amended complaint also tracked the statutory language of the relevant portions of Florida’s long-arm jurisdiction statute (section 48.193 of the Florida Statutes (2015)).”
— 48.193(1)(a)(2) — 93 cases
Leon v. Cont'l AG (2017)
“Fla. Stat. § 48.193 (1)(a)(1). 2. Committing a tortious act within [Florida] Fla.”
Gubarev v. Buzzfeed, Inc. (2017)
“In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants argue that this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendants because: (1) there is no’ statutory basis for exercising personal jurisdiction pursuant to Florida’s long-arm statute, Fla. Stat. § 48.193 , and (2) exercising…”
Abdo v. Abdo (2018)
Estes v. Rodin (2018)
— 48.193(1)(a)(3) — 6 cases
Aluia v. Dyck-O'Neal, Inc. (2016)
Banco De Los Trabajadores v. Cortez Moreno (2018)
“Procedural Background In addition to pleading these case-specific facts, Cortez’s second amended complaint also tracked the statutory language of the relevant portions of Florida’s long-arm jurisdiction statute (section 48.193 of the Florida Statutes (2015)).”
— 48.193(1)(a)(4) — 5 cases
— 48.193(1)(a)(6) — 16 cases
Leon v. Cont'l AG (2017)
“Fla. Stat. § 48.193 (1)(a)(1). 2. Committing a tortious act within [Florida] Fla.”
— 48.193(1)(a)(6)(a) — 4 cases
Williams v. 3rd Home Limited (2021)
— 48.193(1)(a)(6)(b) — 6 cases
Almond v. Coloplast A/S (2021)
Knepfle v. J & P Cycles, LLC (2019)
— 48.193(1)(a)(7) — 32 cases
Abdo v. Abdo (2018)
— 48.193(1)(a)(9) — 9 cases
Worth Group, Inc. v. Morales (2023)
— 48.193(1)(a)(b) — 1 case
Carter v. Estate of Rambo (2006)
— 48.193(1)(b) — 142 cases
Wendt v. Horowitz (2002)
“[7] See § 48.193(1) (stating that "[a]ny person .”
Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall (2010)
“The website promises to contact individual consumers with certain information (“We will contact you if a lawsuit is being considered or has been filed which you may want to be a party to”), e-mail victims to contact other victims and attorneys interested in pursuing class action…”
Acquadro v. Bergeron (2003)
“Section 48.193 does not, as petitioners argue, distinguish among the universe of possible torts.”
Kountze v. Kountze (2008)
— 48.193(1)(c) — 13 cases
McRae v. JD/MD, Inc. (1987)
Marshall v. Marshall (2008)
Forrest v. Forrest (2003)
— 48.193(1)(d) — 15 cases
— 48.193(1)(e) — 32 cases
Mouzon v. Mouzon (1984)
Weiler v. Weiler (2003)
Heineken v. Heineken (1996)
Schroeder v. Schroeder (1983)
— 48.193(1)(f) — 39 cases
Dean v. Johns (2001)
— 48.193(1)(f)(1) — 2 cases
Wendt v. Horowitz (2002)
“[7] See § 48.193(1) (stating that "[a]ny person .”
— 48.193(1)(f)(2) — 19 cases
WCTU Ry. Co. v. Szilagyi (1987)
Conley v. Boyle Drug Co. (1990)
— 48.193(1)(f)(l) — 1 case
— 48.193(1)(g) — 106 cases
Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais (1989)
“In essence, the court below held that the requisite minimum contacts are built into section 48.193. Otherwise, the statute would be held unconstitutional.”
Lacy v. Force v. Corp. (1981)
— 48.193(1)(g)(2) — 1 case
— 48.193(1)(h) — 3 cases
Munnerlyn v. Wingster (2002)
Keveloh v. Carter (1997)
Hollowell v. Tamburro (2008)
— 48.193(2) — 232 cases
Banco De Los Trabajadores v. Cortez Moreno (2018)
“Procedural Background In addition to pleading these case-specific facts, Cortez’s second amended complaint also tracked the statutory language of the relevant portions of Florida’s long-arm jurisdiction statute (section 48.193 of the Florida Statutes (2015)).”
Caiazzo v. American Royal Arts Corp. (2011)
“Section 48.193, Florida Statutes, is Florida’s long-arm statute and addresses both specific and general jurisdiction.”
Gadea v. Star Cruises, Ltd. (2007)
— 48.193(3) — 17 cases
Mouzon v. Mouzon (1984)
Conley v. Boyle Drug Co. (1990)
Soule v. Rosasco-Soule (1980)
— 48.193(4) — 3 cases
Baggett v. Walsh (1987)
Lampe v. Hoyne (1995)
Palmer v. Palmer (1978)
— 48.193(5) — 1 case
Blackmon v. Blackmon (1986)
— 48.193(6)(a) — 1 case
Williams v. 3rd Home Limited (2021)
— 48.193(a) — 4 cases
Miot v. Kechijian (1993)
— 48.193(a)(1) — 2 cases
Rana v. Flynn (2002)
— 48.193(a)(2) — 1 case
PeopleShare, LLC v. Vogler (2022)
— 48.193(a)(7) — 1 case
Arthrex, Inc. v. Hilton (2022)
— 48.193(b) — 10 cases
— 48.193(d) — 1 case
— 48.193(e) — 1 case
Arnstein v. Arnstein (1982)
— 48.193(f) — 1 case
— 48.193(f)(2) — 1 case
— 48.193(g) — 8 cases
— 48.193(i)(a) — 1 case
Keston v. FirstCollect, Inc. (2007)
— 48.193(l) — 1 case
— 48.193(l)(a) — 88 cases
Caiazzo v. American Royal Arts Corp. (2011)
“Section 48.193, Florida Statutes, is Florida’s long-arm statute and addresses both specific and general jurisdiction.”
Goltv, Inc. v. Fox Sports Latin America Ltd. (2017)
“See Fla. Stat. §§ 48.193 (1)-(2). The Amended Complaint asserts only-specific personal jurisdiction over- Conme-bol and Full Play.”
General Cigar Holdings, Inc. v. Altadis, S.A. (2002)
“§ 48.193, Fla.Stat. (2002). The statute provides in relevant part: (1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby submits himself or herself .”
— 48.193(l)(a)(2) — 4 cases
Goltv, Inc. v. Fox Sports Latin America Ltd. (2017)
“See Fla. Stat. §§ 48.193 (1)-(2). The Amended Complaint asserts only-specific personal jurisdiction over- Conme-bol and Full Play.”
Rautenberg v. Falz (2016)
— 48.193(l)(a)(4) — 1 case
Brown v. Carnival Corp. (2016)
— 48.193(l)(a)(6) — 3 cases
Brown v. Bottling Group, LLC (2016)
— 48.193(l)(a)(6)(a) — 1 case
— 48.193(l)(a)(6)(b) — 1 case
— 48.193(l)(a)(7) — 2 cases
— 48.193(l)(a)(l) — 4 cases
Goltv, Inc. v. Fox Sports Latin America Ltd. (2017)
“See Fla. Stat. §§ 48.193 (1)-(2). The Amended Complaint asserts only-specific personal jurisdiction over- Conme-bol and Full Play.”
Brown v. Carnival Corp. (2016)
— 48.193(l)(b) — 103 cases
Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall (2010)
“The website promises to contact individual consumers with certain information (“We will contact you if a lawsuit is being considered or has been filed which you may want to be a party to”), e-mail victims to contact other victims and attorneys interested in pursuing class action…”
General Cigar Holdings, Inc. v. Altadis, S.A. (2002)
“§ 48.193, Fla.Stat. (2002). The statute provides in relevant part: (1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby submits himself or herself .”
Wiggins v. Tigrent, Inc. (2014)
— 48.193(l)(c) — 5 cases
Blackmon v. Blackmon (1986)
Truelove v. Truelove (1986)
— 48.193(l)(d) — 12 cases
— 48.193(l)(e) — 13 cases
Rafaeil v. Rafaeil (2002)
Whatmore v. Babcock (1996)
Hurlock v. Hurlock (1997)
Gil v. Mendelson (2003)
— 48.193(l)(f) — 25 cases
Bloom v. AH Pond Co., Inc. (1981)
Miller v. Berman (2003)
— 48.193(l)(f)(2) — 10 cases
White v. Bombardier Corp. (2004)
Identigene, Inc. v. Goff (2000)
— 48.193(l)(f)(l) — 4 cases
Santos v. Sacks (1988)
— 48.193(l)(g) — 67 cases
— 48.193(l)(h) — 5 cases
Oldt v. Sides (1991)
Rafaeil v. Rafaeil (2002)
Larson-Jackson v. Neal (1989)
— 48.193(lXa) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.