Willhite v. RODRIGUEZ-CERA
Supreme Court of Colorado
1DissentJustice Eid
39 I join Justice Coats' dissent. I write separately to address the majority's conclusion that - "mailing [to the defendant] is not required to complete service" under Rule 4(£), and that therefore the Hague Convention does not apply to this case. Maj. op. at €24. Under the plain language of Rule 4(£)(2), the court "shall ... order the process to be mailed to the address(es) of [the defendant] ... on or before the date of delivery" of process to the substitute party. C.R.C.P. 4(f)(2) (emphasis added). Thus, service is complete only after the process has been mailed to the defendant and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. SchlunkSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Wuchter v. PizzuttiSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- McClenon v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A.District Court, N.D. Florida · 1989
- Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc. Equity Securities Litigation v. CucuzDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2003
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.