Raymond v. Raymond’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Smith v. Sidney Moncrief Pontiac, Buick, GMC Co. (2003), Nucor Corp. v. Kilman (2004)
83 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
Relies on Carruth v. Design Interiors, Inc. · Tucker v. Johnson · Edmonson v. Farris · Wilburn v. Keenan Companies, Inc. · Lyons v. Forrest City MacHine Works, Inc.
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f service of process is not made on a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint or within the time period established by an extension granted pursuant to paragraph (2) the action shall be dismissed[.]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Arkansas law is long setded that service of valid process is necessary to give a court jurisdiction over a defendant. Tucker v. Johnson, 275 Ark. 61 , 628 S.W.2d 281 (1982) (citing Halliman v. Stiles, 250 Ark. 249 , 464 S.W.2d 573 (1971), and Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co. v. Holt, 192 Ark. 165 , 90 S.W.2d 473 (1936)). Moreover, a summons is necessary to satisfy due process requirements. Thompson v. Potlatch Corp., 326 Ark. 244 , 930 S.W.2d 355 (1996). It is also mandatory under Arkansas law that service of process must be made within 120 days after the filing of the complaint unless there is a motion to extend, and if service is not obtained within the 120 day period and no such motion is made, dismissal is required upon motion or upon the court’s own initiative. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(i); Lyons v. Forrest City Machine Works, Inc., 301 Ark. 559 , 785 S.W.2d 220 (1990) (under Rule 4(i), the trial court’s dismissal of the case for failure to make service of summons was mandatory); see also Southeast Foods, Inc. v. Keener, 335 Ark. 209 , 979 S.W.2d 885 (1998); Dougherty v. Sullivan, 318 Ark. 608 , 887 S.W.2d 305 (1994); Lawson v. Edmondson, 302 Ark. 46 , 786 S.W.2d 823 (1990). Our case law is equally well-setded that statutory service requirements, being in derogation of common-law rights, must be strictly construed and compliance with them must be exact. Carruth v. Design Interiors, Inc., 324 Ark. 373 , 921 S.W.2d 944 (1996) (citing Wilburn v. Keenan Cos., 298 Ark. 461 , 768 S”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.