This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-08-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him or her.[24] Its purpose is two-fold: to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and to notify the defendant that an action has been commenced so that he may be given an opportunity to be heard on the claim against him.[25] "[C]ompliance with the rules regarding the service of summons is as much an issue of due process as of jurisdiction. The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of his defense. It is elementary that before a person can be deprived of his property, he should first be informed of the claim against him and the theory on which such claim is premised."[26] | |||||
|
2014-10-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We are not unmindful of the widespread and flagrant practice whereby the defendants actively attempt to frustrate the proper service of summons by refusing to give their names, rebuffing request to sign for or receive documents, or eluding officers of the courts.[5] However, although sheriffs are not expected to be sleuths and cannot be faulted when the defendants themselves engage in deception to thwart the orderly administration of justice, they must be resourceful, persevering, canny and diligent in serving the process on the defendant.[6] Although the respondent had many other cases to attend to as process server and special sheriff, still, the respondent should have exerted extra effort to effect the service of summons as possible so as not to delay the speedy administration of justice. | |||||