From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pomerantz v. Hollowell

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 24, 1987
502 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Opinion

No. 86-1622.

February 24, 1987.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Maria M. Korvick, J.

Akerman, Senterfitt Eidson and Kirk L. Burns and Ellen C. Freidin, Miami, for appellant.

Edward C. Vining, Jr. and Thomas Scott, Miami, for appellee.

Before NESBITT, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.


We reverse the trial court's order denying Pomerantz's motion to dismiss for improper service. It is well established that nonresident witnesses who voluntarily enter the state to testify in pending litigation are immune from service of process for a reasonable time before and after they testify. Stokes v. Bell, 441 So.2d 146 (Fla. 1983); Lienard v. De Witt, 153 So.2d 302 (Fla. 1963); Murphy Jordan, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 278 So.2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The evidence established that Pomerantz was a resident of Georgia who entered Florida only to provide deposition testimony in a suit wherein he was not a party. As such, he was immune from service when he was served immediately following his deposition.

Reversed.


Summaries of

Pomerantz v. Hollowell

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 24, 1987
502 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
Case details for

Pomerantz v. Hollowell

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL S. POMERANTZ, APPELLANT, v. JACOB J. HOLLOWELL, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Feb 24, 1987

Citations

502 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Citing Cases

Planet Fitness Int'l Franchise v. JEG-United, LLC

To start, Ibarra argues that JEG-United's service of the subpoenas was invalid because Florida state law…

In re Marriage of Gonzalez

It is a well established rule that nonresident witnesses who have entered the state to testify in pending…