Vester Russell v. City of Milwaukee, City of Milwaukee Employees' Retirement System Annuity & Pension Board, Gary J. Brazgel

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that party was properly served under Civil Rule 25(a)(1), requiring service under Civil Rule 5(b), based on proof of mailing regardless of proof of non-receipt
• affirming district court’s dismissal of a case with prejudice under Rule 25(a) where a motion for substitution was untimely filed and the movant did not make “any showing or argument of excusable neglect”
• “[T]he absence of a certificate does not require the invalidation of the paper where service is not contested or where the court finds that service was accomplished.” (quoting 1 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 5.20[1] at 5-34 (3d ed.)
• affirming dismissal with prejudice under Rule 25(a)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).