Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Steve Benny v. Danny Pipes

807 F.2d 1514

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
52 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