Legal Opinion
Pickett v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided July 13, 2001No. 104, September Term, 2000PublishedCited by 57 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BATTAGLIA, Judge.
Appellant, Allan Pickett, (hereinafter “Pickett”), comes before this Court to challenge the constitutionality of substituted service under Maryland Rule 3-121 (c) used in a debt collection action brought by appellee, Sears, Roebuck & Company (hereinafter “Sears”). Pickett argues that Sears’s service of process, pursuant to an order of the District Court of Maryland, sitting in Carroll County, failed to comport with the requirements of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
In the event…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Mennonite Board of Missions v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. PopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Grannis v. OrdeanSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by57 opinions
- Daniel Anthony Miller v. Prince George's County, Maryland, a Body Corporate and Politic John L. DougansCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007
- Hamilton v. Mayor of BaltimoreDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2011
- Waybright v. Frederick County, MDCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2008
- Davis v. SlaterCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
- Koshko v. HainingCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.