•
P r a c t i c e T
i p s • |
Service
of Process |
|
 |
|
|
KANSAS
LAW
In 2000, the Kansas legislature overhauled K.S.A.
60-303 and provided an innovative way to serve an
elusive defendant with process. Pursuant to K.S.A.
60 303(c), service upon a defendant may be made
by return receipt delivery. Service by return receipt
delivery includes “service effected by certified
mail, priority mail, commercial courier service,
overnight delivery service, or other reliable
personal delivery service to the party addressed.”
Id. To be valid, the service need only be evidencedby
a written or electronic receipt showing
to whom it was delivered, the date of delivery,
the address where it was delivered and the personor
entity effecting delivery. Id.
KTLA member Pat Neustrom related success obtaining
service
|
by Federal Express which
will deliver the package directly to the defendant
and require signature. The signature can be taken
off the internet for proof of service.
Service was obtained by Pat on a defendant who was
avoiding sheriff’s service, but who was eager
to receive a package from Federal Express.
An attorney suing in a Kansas federal court may also
obtain service by return receipt delivery. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) (2003). The Fed. R. Civ. P. do
not independently provide for serviceby return receipt
delivery.§ 4(e)(2). However, Fed. R. Civ. P.
(4)(e)(1) allows service of process “pursuant
to the law of the state in which the district court
is located, or in which service is effected.”
Because K.S.A. 60-303(c) permits service upon an individual
by |
return receipt delivery,
service by retrun return receipt delivery is also
proper in a Kansas federal court. See, e.g.,
Clelland v. Glines 2003 WL 21105084 at *4 (D.
Kan. April 11, 2003).
MISSOURI
LAW
Missouri does not allow service
of
process by return receipt delivery, but rather requires
personal service on an individual within the state
to be made by delivery of a copy of the summons
and petition to the individual or by leaving a copy
at the individual’s dwelling house. RSMo 506.150(1)
(2003). Because Missouri state law does not permit
service by return receipt delivery and because no
independent basis for such service exists in the
federal rules, return receipt delivery service is
also invalid in a Missouri federal court. |
|
|
JOHNSON
COUNTY KANSAS VERDICT
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1
product liability evidence and experts against
Firestone. Over plaintiff’s objection, KEYS also introduced
evidence that the Firestone FR410 tire was substantially similar
to the Firestone recall tires (the Wilderness AT and Radial ATX
tires), and therefore, was similarly defective. We believe this
evidence was largely responsible for the allocation of 73% of
the fault in the case to Firestone.
As a result of the rollover accident, |
Cory
Pronold suffered fractures to his skull and right orbital socket,
an severed the right optic nerve. He was in a coma for approximately
two weeks and then spent the next six months at the Rehabilitation
Institute where he relearned the ability to walk, talk, swallow,
and be independent in the activities of daily living. Through
dedicated hard work with his therapists and physicians, and with
the support of his parents, Cory has made a significant recovery,
but unfortunately he is left with many of the deficits associated
with a traumatic brain injury, and he will face many challenges
in |
independent living.
As a matter of trial strategy, rather than make a specific recommendation
to the jury as to the number of hours of care Cory will need in
the future, evidence was presented establishing the nature and
severity of Cory’s injuries, and the things he cannot do.
In closing argument, Cory’s future care was placed in the
hands of the jury, telling them they are the ones who would have
to look out for Cory and ensure he receives appropriate care for
the rest of his life. The jury awarded $3,800,000 in future medical
and supervisory care. |
