Bible v. Bible

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the renewal action based on insufficient service of process in the original action
• holding that there is no authority to dispense with the clear requirements of personal service “merely because the defendant may otherwise obtain knowledge of the filing of the action”
• invalid service where summons and complaint left with defendant's employee at defendant's home when employee did not live there
• “there is no authority to dispense with the clear requirements of [the service statute] merely because the defendant may otherwise obtain knowledge of the filing of the action”
• notorious service is not sufficient when process is left with a person who does not actually reside at the dwelling house or abode of the defendant at the time of service
• where this Court overruled cases that applied the rule of substantial compliance to OCGA § 9-11-4 (d) (7), a “statute so plain and unambiguous that judicial construction is both unnecessary and unauthorized”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).