Robert SWAIM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MOLTAN COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that this rule “recognizes that it is unfair to strip parties of a defense that may explain the omission that is potentially the basis for judgment against them”
• instructing that a default judgment will be set aside \as a per se abuse of discretion if the district court that entered the judgment lacked jurisdiction.\
• noting that plaintiff made three separate attempts at service and that defendant forfeited its jurisdictional argument by failing to raise it in its Rule 60(b) motion
• holding that Trial Rules 4.1 and 4.6 provide “general guidelines,” but “service of process that is reasonably calculated to inform, consistent with the letter of Trial Rule 4.15(F), is sufficient even if it fails to actually inform the party to which it is directed”
• noting that this rule “recognizes that it is unfair to strip parties of a defense that may explain the omission that is poten- tially the basis for judgment against them”
• upholding a district court’s entry of default judgment and denial of a motion to reconsider where defendant made three attempts at service

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).