Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 840 F.2d 685 - Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Technologies, Inc.

Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Technologies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

840 F.2d 685 · 1988

Citation profile

112
cited by 112 later decisions
6
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

44 federal appellate · 15 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably TCI Group Life Insurance Plan v. Knoebber (2001), Edwards v. Occidental Chemical Corp. (1990)

44 federal appellate · 15 district · 11 state decisions

50019881990200020102020decided

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)

Relies on Scharffe v. Perkins · Tiller v. NCNB Bank · H. F. Livermore Corp. v. Aktiengesellschaft Gebruder Loepfe · Jackson v. Hayakawa · Meadows v. Dominican Republic

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

  1. “A federal court does not have jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served properly under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “so integrated with the organization that he will know what to do with the papers. Generally, service is sufficient when made upon an individual who stands in such a position as to render it fair, reasonable and just to imply the authority on his part to receive service.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Unless otherwise provided by federal law, service upon a domestic or foreign corporation ... shall be effected: ... in a judicial district of the United States in the manner prescribed for individuals by subdivision (e)(1), or by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process and, if the agent is one authorized by statute to receive service and the statute so requires, by also mailing a copy to the defendant.”
    4 later decisions 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.