Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill, P.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that statements by defendant, a lawyer residing in Michigan, to clients the defendant knew resided in Florida supported a Florida federal court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant
• recognizing that Florida law regarding this issue has been unclear but holding that subsection (1)(b) extends jurisdiction over defendant whom plaintiff alleged caused injury in Florida through negligent drafting and review of will that occurred out of state
• explaining that both prongs of the analysis must be satisfied for a federal court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant
• finding that the burden occasioned by litigating in a different state for the Defendants, while not slight, was greatly reduced by modern methods of transportation
• concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 13 motion to transfer from Florida to Michigan because to do so would simply shift inconvenience from defendant to plaintiff
• refusing to transfer venue where inconvenience would merely be shifted from the defendant to the plaintiff

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).