(Hat tip to Ted Folkman, for whom Gurung v. Molhatra is a White Whale. This issue is one of mine, for similarly frustrating reasons.)
Remember that legal analysis hierarchy they told us about as 1L’s? In order of authority:
I took Civ Pro from a giant.
When I say giant, I mean in the figurative sense, because he’s only 5’7″ or so, but this diminutive fellow remains among the most talented and effective teachers I’ve ever had. He inspired me to wear bow ties, and illustrated the myriad types of joinder with a shopping bag full of beanie babies (I’m not joking).* I grasped counterclaims and cross claims and third party claims pretty quickly– about the only things I grasped quickly as a 1L– because of an effective teaching tool.Continue Reading Notice pleading, y’all.
A bit of 4L stuff here– the stuff they never mentioned in Civ Pro class* because it was so basic as to be assumed [ahem, we all know what assumptions do]. Your assigned readings today are limited (mercifully) to Fed. R. Civ. P.
We aren’t building rockets here. But we are building a ship of sorts, and a leaky hull means the cruise ship might not get you to that cabana sheltered rum drink you’ve been craving. Serving process in the Cayman Islands is subject to the strictures of the Hague Service Convention, regardless of which U.S.
Many of us have a certain image of Australia pressed into our minds because of Hollywood. It’s either Crocodile Dundee or The Crocodile Hunter or… hang on, is there just something about crocodile guys with Down Under accents that make
[This post was rendered moot on December 1, 2023 with the entry into force of the Hague Service Convention in Singapore. For updated procedures, simply click here.]
At the far south end of the Malay Peninsula lies a tiny city
I say all the time that we ain’t building rockets here. But we are communicating. And if your phone doesn’t work correctly, you have problems. The sturdiest cellphone I ever owned was a decade ago– in the pre-smartphone days. It was a
An interesting and seemingly Hague-related case came to light this week, and it came specifically to my attention thanks to the NorCal IP Blog by the guys at Orrick Herrington.* As it turns out, it isn’t a Hague
[Update, 2022: For a more academic view of this issue, see William S. Dodge, Substituted Service and the Hague Service Convention, 63 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1485 (2022).]
Two weeks ago, I posted that you can’t simply serve a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign company & get the parent on the hook in a lawsuit. For such an idea to work, your state’s public policy has to disregard the corporate veil. Only one state has done so– and under very limited circumstances. [That was Illinois, where they did it by statute– that I know of– and where the idea only pertains to Illinois subsidiaries. That’s how we got Schlunk, the seminal case in Hague Service Convention jurisprudence. No other state does it, that I know of.]
Another misconception seems to pop up from time to time: the thought that you can serve a foreign* corporation by delivery to the Secretary of State wherever the case is being heard because the Secretary is a statutory agent. Sorry, but it just ain’t so. When you do serve via the SoS, ask yourself, “what do they do with it?”Continue Reading You Can’t Simply Serve the Secretary of State
My BusOrg professor in law school was a bigtime Boston Red Sox fan. We didn’t hold it against him at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, because we sort of knew the pain Sox fans had felt for so long (they went 86 years between World Series titles; the Royals only went thirty, but
