green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
18.9 score
“the rule is clear that it must appear that any agent who accepts service must be shown to have been authorized to bind his principal by the acceptance of process . . . .”
Treatment trajectory · 1955 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1955
1990
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Harris v. Smith
the rule is clear that it must appear that any agent who accepts service must be shown to have been authorized to bind his principal by the acceptance of process . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Harrison Combs, Trustee, United Mine Workers 1974 Pension Trust v. Nick Garin Trucking, Harrison Combs, Trustee, United Mine Workers 1974 Pension Trust v. Nick Garin Trucking
o showing of merits is necessary in support of a motion to vacate a void judgment
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stallard v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
P. 4(h)(1)(B). 5 “[A]ny agent who accepts service must be shown to have been authorized to bind his [or her] principal by the acceptance of process[,]” Schwarz v. Thomas, 222 F.2d 305, 308 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP v. Rosenthal-Hidalgo
Life Ins., 667 A.2d 105, 106 (D.C. 1995) (quoting Schwarz v. Thomas, 222 F.2d 305, 308 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ashbourne v. Hansberry
Because there is no ground for the Court to grant Ms. Ashbourne’s request and it is undisputed that these individuals have not been served, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the due process claims against James Trommatter and Thomas Harker in their individual capacities. 7 Regarding Ms. Ashbourne’s request for alternative service, the “elementary law of agency” is “clear” that “any agent who accepts service must be shown to have been authorized to bind his principal by the acceptance of process.” Schwarz v. Thomas, 222 F.2d 305, 308 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brodie v. Worthington
LCvR 72.3(c). 3 Schwarz v. Thomas, 222 F.2d 305, 308 (D.C.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
McLaughlin v. Fidelity Security Life Insurance
(3×)
The rule is clear that it must appear that any agent who accepts service must be shown to have been authorized to bind his principal by the acceptance of process and, farther, that the authority to accept such service cannot be shown by the extra-judicial statements of the attorney.” Schwarz v. Thomas, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 365, 368 , 222 F.2d 305, 308 (1955).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ziegler Bolt and Parts Co.
It is an elementary law of agency that “any agent who accepts service must be shown to have been authorized to bind his principal by the acceptance of process.” Schwarz v. Thomas, 222 F.2d 305, 308 (D.C.Cir.1955); see also 4A Wright & Miller § 1097 at 85-86 (“[D]efendant’s attorney probably will not be deemed an agent appointed to receive process absent a factual basis for believing that an appointment of this type has taken place.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Whisman v. Robbins
“The rule is clear that it must appear that any agent who accepts service must be shown to have been authorized to bind his principal by the acceptance of process and, further, that the authority to accept such service cannot be shown by the extrajudicial statements of the attorney [agent].” Schwarz v. Thomas, 222 F.2d 305, 308 (D.C.Cir.1955).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mann v. Art Britton Auction Sales, Ltd. (In Re Riverfront Food & Beverage Corp.)
This is an elementary law of agency.” Schwarz v. Thomas, 222 F.2d 305, 308 (D.C.Cir.1955).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kendrick v. Thompson
(2×)
The rule, particularly insofar as it grants immunity to non-resident plaintiffs, has been the subject of criticism; 2 but the Supreme Court has not departed from the rule, although it recognized an exception to the rule in Lamb v. Schmitt, 285 U.S. 222 , 52 S.Ct. 317 , 76 L.Ed. 720 (1932), where the second action was sufficiently related to the first. 3 In this jurisdiction the rule has been applied on numerous occasions. 4 In Schwarz v. Thomas, 95 U.S. App.D.C. 365, 367, 222 F.2d 305, 307 (1955), the court, after stating that the non-resident witness is exempt, said: “Also according to the …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Government of the Dominican Republic v. Hal Roach, Jr., Individually and Trading as Radio News Service Corporation
See also: Schwarz v. Thomas, 1955, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 365, 366, 367 , 222 F.2d 305, 306, 307 ; In re Hall, D.C.N.Y. 1924, 296 F. 780, 782 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Brodie v. Worthington
See Schwarz v. Thomas, 222 F.2d 305, 308 (D.C.Cir.1955) (“The rule is clear that ... any agent who accepts service must be shown to have been authorized to bind his principal by the acceptance of process.... ”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fenwick v. United States of America
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See id. advisory committee’s note (1993 amendments) (court is authorized to “relieve a plaintiff of the consequences” of Rule 4(m) “even if there is no good cause shown”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fenwick v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See id. advisory committee’s note (1993 amendments) (court is authorized to “relieve a plaintiff of the consequences” of Rule 4(m) “even if there is no good cause shown”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. United States
See Schwarz v. Thomas, 222 F.2d 305, 308 (D.C.Cir.1955) (“any agent who accepts service must be shown to have been authorized to bind his principal by the acceptance of process”), United States v. Marple Cmty. Record, Inc., 335 F.Supp. 95, 101 (E.D.Pa.1971) (“[flor service of process to be valid upon an agent, it must be shown that he was actually appointed by the defendant for the specific purpose of receiving process.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Frank Keevan & Son, Inc. v. Callier Steel Pipe & Tube, Inc.
Accord Schwarz v. Thomas, 222 F.2d 305 (D.C.Cir.1955); C.
cited
Cited "see"
First American Bank, N. A. v. United Equity Corp.
See Schwarz v. Thomas, 222 F.2d 305, 308 (D.C.Cir.1955).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shao v. Roberts
In any event, “claims by an agent of having authority to receive process or the fact that an agent actually accepts process is not enough to satisfy the service requirements of Rule 4(e)(2).” Fenwick v. United States, 691 F. Supp. 2d 108, 113 (D.D.C. 2010) (internal citations omitted); see also Schwarz v. Thomas, 222 F.2d 305, 308 (D.C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking
Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 60.25[2], at 60-224 (1985); see also Schwarz v. Thomas, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 365, 369 , 222 F.2d 305, 309 (1955) (”‘[n]o showing of merits is necessary in support of a motion to vacate a void judgment' ’’) (quoting Wise v. Herzog, 72 U.S.App.D.C. 335 , 341, 114 F.2d 486, 494 (1940)); Gold Kist, Inc. v. Laurinburg Oil Co., 756 F.2d 14, 19 (3d Cir.1985); Hicklin v. Edwards, supra note 29, 226 F.2d at 413 . .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,
v.
SAVIOUR SIDOTTI, Appellee
v.
SAVIOUR SIDOTTI, Appellee
12090_1.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Mar 3, 1955.
Mr. Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Messrs. Lewis Carroll and Rufus E. Stetson, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellant., Mr. Richard R. Atkinson, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for appellee.
Bastian, Per Curiam, Prettyman, Washington.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the United States from a small judgment against it in a tort action arising from an automobile collision. We find no error in the judgment of the District Court and no merit in the appeal.
Affirmed.