Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Steve Benny v. Danny Pipes

Steve Benny v. Danny Pipes, 807 F.2d 1514 (9th Cir. 1987)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1987-01-16
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • “A general appearance or responsive pleading by a defendant that fails to dispute personal jurisdiction will waive any defect in service or personal jurisdiction.”
  • “A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4.”
  • “A federal court is without personal 12 jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance with 13 [Rule] 4.”
  • “An appearance ordinarily is an overt act by which the party comes into court 9 and submits to the jurisdiction of the court.”
  • “A general appearance or responsive pleading by a defendant that fails to dispute 9 personal jurisdiction will waive any defect in service or personal jurisdiction.”
  • “A general appearance or responsive pleading 10 by a defendant that fails to dispute personal jurisdiction will waive any defect in service 11 or personal jurisdiction.”
  • “A federal court is without personal 1 jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance with Fed. R. 2 Civ. P. 4.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Steve Benny v. Danny Pipes. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
57 opinions
BENNY v. PIPES,807 F.2d 1514(9th Cir. 1987)
STEVE BENNY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DANNY PIPES, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
No. 85-2347.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
January 16, 1987.
James T. Bialac, Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee.

Ronald J. Greenhalgh, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., for defendants-appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Before PREGERSON, POOLE, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.
[1] ORDER
[2] The court's opinion in this case filed September 5, 1986,799 F.2d 489, is amended as follows:

[3] At page 495, the parenthetical after the citation toMeredithv. Arizona,523 F.2d 481, 482-83 (9th Cir. 1975), which reads "single blow by guard is a substantive due process violation," is amended to read "single blow by a guardcan bea substantive due process violation."Page 853