Magill v. United-States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that doorman at defendant’s condominium building was “residing therein” for purposes of service of process
• holding that doorman at defendant's condominium building, whose duty it was to receive delivery of packages and correspondence for tenants, was \residing therein\ for purposes of service of process
• holding that the doorman of a high-security, restricted-access condominium building, authorized to receive packages and letters for residents, who received service was “residing therein” for purposes of Rule 4(d)(1)
• finding valid service under Rule 4

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).