The Plaintiff NIL filed a suit against the defendant HSI in the Texas state court. The return of service showed that the process has been served on the commissioner of Texas state as soon as it was delivered to JK, a defendant in person. As the defendant didn’t respond to the service of process, the decision was given in favor of the plaintiff. After 5 months, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial claiming that they were not served with the process in severe compliance with the service of process. To Explain : (a) The applicability of assertion made by the defendant that JK didn’t have the authority to accept the process on their behalf. To Find: (b) The person responsible for ensuring that the service of process is accomplished properly.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 3, Problem 9BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: The Plaintiff NIL filed a suit against the defendant HSI in the Texas state court. The return of service showed that the process has been served on the commissioner of Texas state as soon as it was delivered to JK, a defendant in person. As the defendant didn’t respond to the service of process, the decision was given in favor of the plaintiff. After 5 months, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial claiming that they were not served with the process in severe compliance with the service of process.

To Explain: (a) The applicability of assertion made by the defendant that JK didn’t have the authority to accept the process on their behalf.

To Find: (b) The person responsible for ensuring that the service of process is accomplished properly.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Can you solve this general accounting question with accurate accounting calculations?

Can you help me solve this general accounting problem with the correct methodology?

I need help finding the accurate solution to this general accounting problem with valid methods.

Answer 2

Question

Chapter 3, Problem 9BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: The Plaintiff NIL filed a suit against the defendant HSI in the Texas state court. The return of service showed that the process has been served on the commissioner of Texas state as soon as it was delivered to JK, a defendant in person. As the defendant didn’t respond to the service of process, the decision was given in favor of the plaintiff. After 5 months, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial claiming that they were not served with the process in severe compliance with the service of process.

To Explain: (a) The applicability of assertion made by the defendant that JK didn’t have the authority to accept the process on their behalf.

To Find: (b) The person responsible for ensuring that the service of process is accomplished properly.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Answer 3

Question

Chapter 3, Problem 9BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: The Plaintiff NIL filed a suit against the defendant HSI in the Texas state court. The return of service showed that the process has been served on the commissioner of Texas state as soon as it was delivered to JK, a defendant in person. As the defendant didn’t respond to the service of process, the decision was given in favor of the plaintiff. After 5 months, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial claiming that they were not served with the process in severe compliance with the service of process.

To Explain: (a) The applicability of assertion made by the defendant that JK didn’t have the authority to accept the process on their behalf.

To Find: (b) The person responsible for ensuring that the service of process is accomplished properly.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Answer 4

Question

Chapter 3, Problem 9BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: The Plaintiff NIL filed a suit against the defendant HSI in the Texas state court. The return of service showed that the process has been served on the commissioner of Texas state as soon as it was delivered to JK, a defendant in person. As the defendant didn’t respond to the service of process, the decision was given in favor of the plaintiff. After 5 months, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial claiming that they were not served with the process in severe compliance with the service of process.

To Explain: (a) The applicability of assertion made by the defendant that JK didn’t have the authority to accept the process on their behalf.

To Find: (b) The person responsible for ensuring that the service of process is accomplished properly.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Answer 5

Chapter 3, Problem 9BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: The Plaintiff NIL filed a suit against the defendant HSI in the Texas state court. The return of service showed that the process has been served on the commissioner of Texas state as soon as it was delivered to JK, a defendant in person. As the defendant didn’t respond to the service of process, the decision was given in favor of the plaintiff. After 5 months, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial claiming that they were not served with the process in severe compliance with the service of process.

To Explain: (a) The applicability of assertion made by the defendant that JK didn’t have the authority to accept the process on their behalf.

To Find: (b) The person responsible for ensuring that the service of process is accomplished properly.

Answer 6

Chapter 3, Problem 9BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: The Plaintiff NIL filed a suit against the defendant HSI in the Texas state court. The return of service showed that the process has been served on the commissioner of Texas state as soon as it was delivered to JK, a defendant in person. As the defendant didn’t respond to the service of process, the decision was given in favor of the plaintiff. After 5 months, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial claiming that they were not served with the process in severe compliance with the service of process.

To Explain: (a) The applicability of assertion made by the defendant that JK didn’t have the authority to accept the process on their behalf.

To Find: (b) The person responsible for ensuring that the service of process is accomplished properly.

Answer 7

Chapter 3, Problem 9BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: The Plaintiff NIL filed a suit against the defendant HSI in the Texas state court. The return of service showed that the process has been served on the commissioner of Texas state as soon as it was delivered to JK, a defendant in person. As the defendant didn’t respond to the service of process, the decision was given in favor of the plaintiff. After 5 months, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial claiming that they were not served with the process in severe compliance with the service of process.

To Explain: (a) The applicability of assertion made by the defendant that JK didn’t have the authority to accept the process on their behalf.

To Find: (b) The person responsible for ensuring that the service of process is accomplished properly.

Answer 8

Expert Solution & Answer

Answer 9

Expert Solution & Answer

Answer 10

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Answer 11

Ch. 3 - Prob. 1RE Ch. 3 - Prob. 2RE Ch. 3 - Prob. 3RE Ch. 3 - Prob. 4RE Ch. 3 - Prob. 1IS Ch. 3 - Prob. 2IS Ch. 3 - Prob. 1BS Ch. 3 - Prob. 2BS Ch. 3 - Prob. 3BS Ch. 3 - Prob. 4BS

Solution Summary: The author explains that the plaintiff NIL filed a suit against the defendant HSI in the Texas state court.

Want to see the full answer?

Chapter 3 Solutions