Narrative Opinion Summary
The court affirms the trial court's decision to deny the motions to dismiss filed by appellants Pilkington Brothers pic. and Chance Pilkington Limited. The ruling is based on the finding that both appellants had sufficient contacts with the State of Florida to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute (Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a) 1985). The court references precedent cases, including Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, Waldrip v. Dyal Sales Co., and Anson v. Lemperuer, to support its decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Personal Jurisdiction under Florida's Long-Arm Statutesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the appellants had sufficient contacts with the State of Florida, thereby justifying the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them.
Reasoning: The ruling is based on the finding that both appellants had sufficient contacts with the State of Florida to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute (Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a) 1985).
Precedent in Establishing Personal Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court relied on established precedent cases to support its decision regarding the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the appellants.
Reasoning: The court references precedent cases, including Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, Waldrip v. Dyal Sales Co., and Anson v. Lemperuer, to support its decision.