Talk:Service of process

Random questions

If a party didn't get serve in person and was serve by an inter-office mail at work. Would that be acceptable?

• Depends on the rules of the jurisdiction, but it could potentially go both ways. It may be legitimate service, or it could be procedurally defective. So long as the person actually got served. You may wish to consult a lawyer if you have any questions. Mmmbeer 17:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Suppose the process server simply forges the party's signature and the party was never really served, then what? There should be a section on improper service or the law governing misconduct by a process server. talk 18:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's safe to say most people know that laws are not meant to be broken. Documenting the laws that can potentially govern the abuse of process, improper or illegal service of process and process server misconduct in every state and every country for every conceivable set of circumstances would take years and fill volumes.

Why does Legal process redirect here? Is this something you do not have in America?--Seamus O'Halloran 22:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In the U.S.A. "Legal process" is a term commonly used to describe any procedure available under the law, not just service of process. You can see what I mean by conducting a search on Google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22legal+process%22&btnG=Google+Search

Removed the "Become a Process Server" section & links to http://BayAreaProcessServers.org

1. Please stop trying to promote servenow.com in this section. Wikipedia is not a business directory and articles are not advertisements (an official policy of long standing). Your ongoing efforts to promote servenow.com here contradict and conflict with the efforts of many who volunteer their time to provide reliable unbiased information in a manner consistent with the high standards everyone wants from Wikipedia.
2. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach a subject matter. Posting pages of information on how to become a process server would be inappropriate even without the links going back to your web site.
3. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The laws you posted were incomplete (abstracts) and did not include links to reliable sources (process serving laws change constantly).
4. Wikipedia works by building consensus. Service of Process is a subject of international interest, you should discuss it first before attempting to overwhelm "service of process" with USA information.

Thank you for removing this section, whoever did it. I agree, servenow.com was simply trying to build links for themselves, and not providing any good info to the Wikipedia community. Great work, and have a great new year. While you are at it, why not remove the link to National Association of Professional Process Servers? This is also an advertisment for Process servers that belong to that association. Thank you.

Process Serving

Would it be possible to have 'process serving' direct to this page. Generally, that's what it is known as in the UK and Ireland. I thought the page didn't exist at first, because my first entry when looking for it was 'process serving'. Unfortunately, I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't know how to do it myself! Blaise Joshua 12:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the content from the article on Process agents would be more appropriate merged in to the content from the article on Process servers. CheshireKatz 03:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the definition of service of process is flawed, legal notice is not neccesarily achieved by effectuating service of process. At least in the U.S., it is possible to satisfy service of process without satisfying legal notice as required by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Please include a link to the local, State or Federal code you are referring to above.

Service on Corporations

The following, in regards to service of process on a corporation's registered agent, is incorrect (Service on an agent of a corporation is a form of personal service):

"Acceptance by an agent for acceptance of service is a form of substituted service"

Merger

I am mildly against merging process agent with service of process. Although the former article is small at the moment, it is probably big enough as a topic to warrant its own article. --Legis (talk - contributions) 14:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. However, shouldn't process agent be merged with registered agent? PeetMoss 15:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot here on the United States as I see, there is a mistake though in relation to the Hague on how it applies to service in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Ecklund (talk • contribs) 01:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Deception used to serve process in US (as featured in many US movies) ?

Many US movies portray the use of various forms of deception/acting in order to get "papers" into the hands of someone being served.

As a non-US citizen, this practice seems bizarre and I came to this page to find out the extent to which this happens in reality, why it happens and why it is permitted. However, I find no reference to this practice. Does this mean it is entirely a fabrication of Hollywood? This seems unlikely, given how widespread the portrayal in film.

Two recent examples are "Burn After Reading" and "Pineapple Express", both of which feature scenes (multiple in the latter movie) in which someone pretends to be someone else in order to serve papers.

Deception/acting is extremely common. Why do you find it bizarre? PeetMoss (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

because it's a serious formal/legal process and it seems bizarre for it to be legal to start such a process using deception. Put another way, it would seem that the law would need to hold itself to a higher standard. In any case, it would be good if this element was covered in the article.

You could set a higher standard if avoiding service of process was not the norm.

Indeed. All I am saying is that from a non-US perspective, this approach seems in parts bizarre and counter-intuitive; probably precisely because it's not obvious that avoiding the service of process is an option. This article is already cited with a 'The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject...' note. I just needs more explicit explanation for people (like me) to whom it isn't implicitly obvious. --Jeremy94117 (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. Attempting to avoid service of process is not unique to the U.S., its common in every country where service of process is performed. I'm not sure why you call it bizarre or counter-intuitive either. PeetMoss (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It should at least be detailed in the article, if a good source can be found. Even after reading this conversation, I'm still unsure whether it's a hollywood myth or not. --78.144.53.170 (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's like asking for a source that the sky is blue. Look at it this way... if it were true that people never attempt to avoid service of process than why do we have process servers and why are they paid a lot more than someone delivering flowers or pizzas? Why not just mail the documents to the defendant with a request to acknowledge receipt. If you are correct no one would attempt to avoid service by not acknowledging they received the documents and we could save a lot of money when filing lawsuits. PeetMoss (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Source that the sky is blue: [1]. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Honesty is the best policy when serving legal papers on someone. One lady told me that the UPS package ploy had been used on her once and she was ready for that. She said she appreciated my honesty about being told I was a process server. Also, process servers make more money because the job is more dangerous than delivering flowers or a pizza for example. The market is competitive too.

http://bayareaprocessservers.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.35.13 (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)