HomeMy WebLinkAbout0864 a..
t
Ill ~ CZI~ZJIT 00(LaT ~
JUDICIAL CIRCZJIT IN A'~ Fit ST. IACIE
OOGTTiY, FTAdtIL1A
FAVIAI7 LEE BROi~TN PICANO; and CASE N0. 78-512 CA
JOHN PICANO, her husband,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MURPHY r1ILLER, INC., etc.,
et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ON PLASTIC INDUSTRIES, INC.'S I~IOTIOi1 TO
DISMISS FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAI?JT, MOTIOtJ TO
QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS, AND MOTIOtiI TO DISMISS
CROSSCLAIM OF liURPHY MILLER, INC. AIdD KROEHLER
MANUFACTURING COMPANY
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard before•the Court on several
occasions, including March 3I, 1980, for the purpose of considering
the Defendant, PLASTIC Iti1DUSTRIES, I2~iC.'S, Motion to Dismiss the
Fourth Amended Complaint and notion to Quash Service of Process and
Motion to Dismiss Crossclaim of MURPHY MILLER, INC. and KROEHLER
MANUFACTURING COMPANY. The Plaintiffs, FAVIA'V LEE BROWN PICAtiO and
JOHN PICANO, her husband, having been represented by Louis M. Silber,
Esquire; the Defendant, PLASTIC INDUSTRIES, INC., represented by
Bernard A. Conko, Esquire; the Defendant, HALSEY & GRIFFITH, I:iC.,
represented by J. Stephen Tierney, Esquire; and the Defendant, MURPHY
MILLER, represented by John Bulfin, Esquire; and the Court having
heard argument of counsel and having had the benefit of respective
briefing and re-briefing on the matter is presented with the consti-
tutional problem of whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over
the out of state corporation.
The issue presented at this hearing arises out of a Fourth
Amended Complaint filed by the Plaintiffs against all of the Defendants
alleging jurisdiction and alleging several counts of negligence, ~
strict liability, and warranty against the various Defendants for
injuries suffered by FAVIAN LEE BRO3nRl PICAIt0 when a chair in which
g~ ~
~~c 330
r
~ . .