Horizon Aggressive Growth, L.P. v. Rothstein-Kass, P.A.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “the percentage of overall revenue gleaned from Florida clients” is a relevant factor for determining whether defendant is “carrying on business” for purposes of Section 48.193(1)(a)(1
• finding the defendant was not conducting business in Florida as it physically performed all of its work for a Florida client from its offices in California
• finding sufficient basis for specific jurisdiction under long-arm statute’s tortious act prong, where communications were allegedly fraudulent
• finding “connexity” where a company’s agent made purposefully misleading statements over the telephone to a client in Florida, amounting to “constructive fraud”
• finding the defendant was not engaged in a general course of business as the defendant had only six Florida clients who accounted for, at most, less than 5% of its gross revenue
• finding no jurisdiction under Section 48.193(1)(a)(1) where out-of-state defendant had no office, place of business, or business license in Florida and sales to Florida customers totaled less than 5 percent of total sales

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).