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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 17 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 McSorley v. Spear.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | McSorley v. Spear Anchor | green | “what constitutes due diligence is determined on a case-by-case basis, focusing not on the quantity of the attempts at personal delivery, but on their quality” | 10 |
| 2 | Estate of Waterman v. Jones | green | “for the purpose of satisfying the 'due diligence' requirement of cplr 308 (4), it must be shown that the process server made genuine inquiries about the defendant's whereabouts and place of employment” | 7 |
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.