United States v. Sielaff

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “{nJeither actual notice . .. nor simply naming the person in the caption of the complaint . . . will subject defendant[] to personal jurisdiction if service was not made in substantial compliance with Rule 4”
• holding that voluntary appearance can waive lack of personal jurisdiction
• holding that a responsive pleading was a general appearance
• the California State Colleges and Universities are state agencies and enjoy immunity under the Eleventh Amendment
• “Defendants must 7 be served in accordance with Rule 4[] . . . or there is no personal jurisdiction.”
• “Defendants must be served in accordance with 24 Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or there is no personal jurisdiction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).