Lance Koster v. Carol Sullivan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that for a return of service to be regular on its face it need not list the factors defining the manner of service—all that is required is that it satisfy the requirements of section 48.21
• holding that for a return of service to be regular on its face it need not list the factors defining the manner of service—all that is required is that it satisfy the requirements of section 48.21
• holding that if the return of service is regular on its face, service of process is presumed to be valid, and the party challenging service has the burden of overcoming that presumption by clear and convincing evidence
• stating that the party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction must demonstrate the facial validity of the return of service
• “A return of service 2 that is [facially valid] must include the statutory factors contained in section 48.21[(1)].”
• “Statutes governing service of process must be strictly construed and enforced.” And when “the statutes point out the mode of acquiring jurisdiction over the person, it must be strictly pursued.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).