Two years ago, I wrote about the “coming of age,” if you will, of service by electronic means. Well, the idea just hit the bigtime with service on Wikileaks via Twitter.
Setting aside questions about properly identified
The mind just reels. I’m in England at the moment, and an England issue has come up that I cannot bear yet again without a rant. Forgive me…
Seriously– it’s like an
Thinking back to Business Organizations class (because calling it “Corporations” doesn’t go far enough), one of the most important lessons I picked up was the importance of properly naming defendants in a lawsuit.* Just as you wouldn’t call a defendant Daniel when her name is Danielle, don’t
[Author’s Note: This morning, Peggy and I woke up in 1882. No, really. We are on board the schooner Grace Bailey for a bit of a break from Missouri’s brutal humidity & heat; if you email me this week, fuggedaboutit. You’ll get my
Peggy and I just took a time warp to 1882. No, really. We are on board the schooner Grace Bailey for a bit of a break from Kansas City’s brutal July weather. All week, we’ll be sailing, sailing, over the bounding main (whatever that is), but not accessible to handle client needs. If
Twice in two hours this afternoon, I’ve fielded somewhat worried emails:
Ninety days. That’s how long you have to serve your defendant, counsel. If you don’t get it done, your case is dismissed.
Put another way… cross a certain line on the calendar without progress, and your claim is dead.
Ah, but wait! The defendant is overseas, and
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.
Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (1988). June 15, 1988, to be precise– thirty years ago today.
On the anniversary of the oral arguments last March, I wrote a bit more, but today is the anniversary of the opinion, written by Justice O’Connor, with all nine agreeing about the result (if not
An interesting case popped up on my newsfeed this afternoon (hat tip to Hwan Kim, writing for Sheppard Mullins’ Construction and Infrastructure Law Blog): Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou
