Pincus v. Mutual Assurance Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• indicating that even where a return of service fails to specifically identify by name the person served, that failure alone does not necessarily invalidate the service
• indicating that even where a return of service fails to specifically identify by name the person served, that failure alone does not necessarily invalidate the service
• upholding service upon corporation and two corporate trustees -5- J-A32021-16 where process was served on manager of corporation's offices, who refused to give his name
• service upon a corporation and two corporate trustees as individuals upheld where process was handed to a manager at the corporation’s offices who refused to give his name
• trustee of corporation possessed requisite proprietary interest for effective service at corporate office
• the return of service showed that the recipient whose name was required refused to state his name; return was held sufficient to establish service and to hold otherwise would permit one to eschew service by merely refusing to give his name

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).