Young v. Sherrod

4 Citing cases

  1. Tucker v. Williams

    2007 CA 2223 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 21 times
    In Tucker v. Williams, 7 So.3d 961, 966 (¶ 14) (Miss.Ct.App.2009), this Court found it was not proper for Tyrone and Sharon Williams to serve process on Herbert Tucker's attorney as there was no evidence this attorney was the proper person to be served pursuant to Rule 4(d)(4).

    Id. Without proper service of process or the entry of an appearance, a trial court does not have jurisdiction over the person. Young v. Sherrod, 919 So.2d 145, 149 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App. 2005) (citing Mansour v. Charmax Indus., Inc., 680 So.2d 852, 854 (Miss. 1996)).

  2. Arnold v. Brookway Corp.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09cv205KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. May. 10, 2010)

    In Mississippi, the rules regarding service of process are to be strictly construed. Young v. Sherrod, 919 So.2d 145, 149 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App. 2005).

  3. Hoffman v. Able Body Temporary Services, Inc.

    Civil No. 1:09CV779HSO-JMR (S.D. Miss. May. 10, 2010)

    Mississippi law is clear: "to accomplish service of process by mail [under Rule 4(c)(3)], the defendant must return a properly executed acknowledgment to the plaintiff." Tucker v. Williams, 7 So. 3d 961, 965 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009); see also Young v. Sherrod, M.D., 919 So. 2d 145 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) ("[s]ervice by mail on a[ ] . . . defendant is complete when the defendant returns the acknowledgment within twenty days.") (emphasis in original). The Notice and Acknowledgment here requested that Defendant execute the acknowledgment under oath, and return it to the sender within twenty days of October 12, 2009, the date of mailing.

  4. Lucas v. Baptist Memorial Hosp

    2007 CA 980 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 14 times

    1996). This Court stated in Young v. Sherrod, 919 So.2d 145, 148 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App. 2005), that "[s]ervice by mail on an in-state defendant is complete when the defendant returns the acknowledgment within twenty days"; however, we do not find such acknowledgment a waiver of any affirmative defenses. Although BMH-NM acknowledged receipt of service, we have found no authority to show where acknowledgment of receipt of process would constitute a waiver of deficient service, nor has Lucas provided us with any such authority.