Armco, Inc. v. Penrod-Stauffer Building Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, in contrast to the usual liberal reading of Rule 4, the procedure to request that the defendant waive service, as explained under the predecessor of Rule 4(d), should be followed precisely
• determining that the rules “are there to be followed, and plain requirements for the means of effecting service of process may not be ignored.”
• noting that the rules governing service “are there to be followed, and plain requirements for the means of effecting service of process may not be ignored”
• noting that the rules governing service “are there to be followed, and plain requirements for the means of effective service of process may not be ignored”
• finding that actual notice is not valid service of process, as “the rules are there to be followed, and plain requirements for the means of effective service of process may not be ignored.”
• finding that actual notice is not valid service of process, as “the rules are there to be followed, and plain requirements for the means of effective service of process may not be ignored.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).