Marshall v. Warwick’s Empirical Analysis
155 F.3d 1027 · 1998
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably Focus Media Inc v. P (2004), Norsyn, Inc. v. Desai (2003)
11 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1448
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Hanna v. Plumer · Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk · Thiele v. Stich · Lindenman v. Umscheid
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`Moreover, there are several compelling reasons to limit the application of the substantial compliance standard to personal service of process. In cases of personal service of process, a court can be reasonably certain that the defendant had notice of the impending suit because the defendant was present for the service. Substituted service of process, in contrast, carries the risk that the defendant never received notice. Allowing only substantial compliance with the requirements for substituted service of process further increases the risk involving an unsuspecting defendant in a lawsuit about which the defendant did not have notice. Arguably, only strict compliance with the requirements of substituted service of process will sufficiently reduce this risk.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In all cases removed from any State court to any district court of the United States in which any one or more of the defendants has not been served with process or in which the service has not been perfected prior to removal, or in which process served proves to be defective, such process or service may be completed or new process issued in the same manner as in cases originally filed in such district court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“while it is clear from Wagner that the South Dakota Supreme Court has adopted the substantial compliance standard for personal service of process, it is not clear that the South Dakota Supreme Court would extend the substantial compliance standard to substituted service of process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.