Legal Opinion · Dissent

Miserandino v. Resort Properties, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided February 12, 1997No. 93, Sept. Term, 1995Published

1DissentChasanow, Judge

A majority of this Court decides today that the notice provisions of Virginia’s long-arm statute are unconstitutional. I respectfully dissent. If statutorily authorized service of process in a long-arm jurisdiction case is actually received by the defendant, whether effectuated by first-class mail or certified mail with restricted delivery and return receipt requested, the court ought to have in personam jurisdiction. The focus of this Court should be on whether the Miserandinos actually received the statutorily authorized mail service. If they did, they received all of the process they were…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Mennonite Board of Missions v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. PopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. Schroeder v. City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  5. Wuchter v. PizzuttiSupreme Court of the United States · 1928

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API