Finkel v. Natale Rota, Inc.
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
Armstrong J.
From their inception the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure placed on the clerk of the District Court the function of issuing process for service on defendants. The clerk, of course, has no occasion to prepare process until the complaint has been filed in court. The adaptors of the Mas sachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure made different provision for process. Doubtless in response to the sheer volume of litigation in the State courts and the realities of staffing limitations in clerks’ offices, they put the onus of preparing process exclusively on the plaintiff, who is to deliver the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Berube v. McKesson Wine & Spirits Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1979
- Branic v. Wheeling Steel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1946
- Old Colony Bank & Trust Co. v. Tacey Transport Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1980
- Phillips v. MurchisonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1961
- Cohn v. CohnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Santiago v. Barre National, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1992
- Christian Book Distributors, Inc. v. WallaceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2001
- United States v. Michael A. CascianoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
- Big D Carpets, Inc. v. Welch Group, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1994
- United States v. CascianoDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1996
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.