Search for: "Quintana v. Attorney General of the State of New Mexico" Results 1 - 5 of 5
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jul 2019, 5:41 am by Austin T. Hamilton, Esq.
Brooker, 799 So. 2d 410, 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding that a venue provision was mandatory where it provided: “both parties agree and accept to be subjected to the jurisdiction and competence of the Administrative Authorities and Courts of the city of Cancun, Municipality of Benito Juarez, in the State of Quintana Roo, Mexico, and the Federal Consumer Office, forsaking any other jurisdiction which either party may claim by virtue of its residency. [read post]
29 Jul 2019, 5:41 am by Austin T. Hamilton, Esq.
Brooker, 799 So. 2d 410, 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding that a venue provision was mandatory where it provided: “both parties agree and accept to be subjected to the jurisdiction and competence of the Administrative Authorities and Courts of the city of Cancun, Municipality of Benito Juarez, in the State of Quintana Roo, Mexico, and the Federal Consumer Office, forsaking any other jurisdiction which either party may claim by virtue of its residency. [read post]