Brockmeyer v. May’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 10 district · 7 state decisions

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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Article 10(a) does not itself affirmatively authorize international mail service. It merely provides that the Convention 'shall not interfere with' the 'freedom' to use postal channels if the 'State of destination' does not object to their use.... Article 10(a), 'It should be stressed that in permitting the utilization of postal channels, ... the draft convention did not intend to pass on the validity of this mode of transmission under the law of the forum state: in order for the postal channel to be utilized, it is necessary that it be authorized by the law of the forum state. ' [Citations.] [¶] In other words, we must look outside the Hague Convention for affirmative authorization of the international mail service that is merely not forbidden by Article 10(a). Any affirmative authorization of service by international mail, and any requirements as to how that service is to be accomplished, must come from the law of the forum in which the suit is filed.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Inversiones Papaluchi S.A.S. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty. · 516 F. Supp. 2d 450 - Mitchell v. Theriault

2. “Bankston is incorrect to the extent that it suggests that the Hague Convention does not permit as a method of service of process the sending of a copy of a summons and complaint by registered mail to a defendant in a foreign country.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon · 499 F. Supp. 2d 1287 - Conax Florida Corp. v. Astrium Ltd.

3. “(a) Service in the courts of the United States ... shall be made upon a foreign state or political subdivision of a foreign state: (1) by delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint in accordance with any special arrangement for service between the plaintiff and the foreign state or political subdivision; or (2) if no special arrangement exists, by delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint in accordance with an applicable international convention on service of judicial documents; or (3) if service cannot be made under paragraphs (1) or (2), by sending a copy of the summons and complaint and a notice of suit, together with a translation of each into the official language of the foreign state, by any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs of the foreign state concerned, ... As used in this subsection, a “notice of suit” shall mean a notice addressed to a foreign state and in a form prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulation. (c) Service shall be deemed to have been made— (2) ... as of the date of receipt indicated in the certification signed and returned postal receipt, or other proof of service applicable to the method of service employed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 709 F. Supp. 2d 1274 - Fly Brazil Group v. the Govt. of Gabon, Africa