Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 38 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Darden v. Daimlerchrysler North America Holding Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Darden v. Daimlerchrysler North America Holding Corp. Anchor | green | “in considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(5) for insufficiency of process, a court must look to matters outside the complaint to determine whether it has jurisdiction.” | 16 |
| 2 | Mende v. Milestone Technology, Inc. | green | “when a defendant raises a rule 12(b)(5) 'challenge to the sufficiency of service of process, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving its adequacy.” | 16 |
| 3 | Soos v. Niagara County | green | “a rule 12(b)(5) motion is the proper vehicle for challenging the mode of delivery or lack of delivery of the summons and complaint.” | 6 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.