Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Abner Wynn Gordon v. The John Deere Company

Abner Wynn Gordon v. John Deere Co., 466 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-09-18
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • “In cases in which a movant requests both a dismissal of the action and in the alternative quashing of service of process, or asks for both forms of relief, the courts have broad discretion either to dismiss the case or to retain it but quash the service.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Abner Wynn Gordon v. The John Deere Company. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
22 opinions
GORDON v. JOHN DEERE COMPANY,466 F.2d 1200(5th Cir. 1972)
ABNER WYNN GORDON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THE JOHN DEERE COMPANY ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 71-1824.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
September 18, 1972.
Roderic G. Magie, Pensacola, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.

William H. Clark, Pensacola, Fla., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and INGRAHAM and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] The disposition of this case rests on the answer to a question that we certified to the Supreme Court of Florida.1Fla.Stat. §25.031, F.S.A., Fla.App. Rules 4.61, 32 F.S.A.

[2] The question certified was whether or not Florida Statutes, Section 48.182 (1970), F.S.A., applies retroactively to allow service under its provisions as to an alleged wrongful act committed prior to the enactment of the statute. The Supreme Court of Florida has ruled that § 48.182 is not to be retroactively applied.2This ruling is consistent with the position taken by the district court,320 F. Supp. 293, in dismissing the action against Deere Company and John Deere of Baltimore.

[3] Appellant contends that service of process on foreign corporations in federal diversity actions should be governed by a uniform federal standard, rather than by the state law standard of the state in which the federal court sits. We have previously held otherwise. Stanga v. McCormick Shipping Corp.,268 F.2d 544(5th Cir. 1959); Time, Inc. v. Manning,366 F.2d 690(5th Cir.Page 12011966); Woodham v. Northwestern Steel Wire Co.,390 F.2d 27(5th Cir. 1968).3

[4] The district court's order, therefore, must be affirmed.

[5] Affirmed.Page 1213
  1. Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩
  2. The facts of the case and the certified question are reported at451 F.2d 234(5th Cir. 1971). ↩
  3. Gordon v. John Deere Co.,264 So.2d 419(Fla. 1972). ↩
  4. For a thorough discussion of the issue and a collection of cases from other CircuitsseeArrowsmith v. United Press International,320 F.2d 219(2nd Cir. 1963) (En Banc). ↩