Oral Arguments are happening now.View them on the web or via Mobile App on iPhone / iPad or Android (4.0+).

You are here

Rudd v. Debora

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Date: 
Tuesday, January 22, 2013

A-12-0196, Richard Rudd (Appellant) v. Hank Debora

 

Douglas County, District Court Judge James T. Gleason

 

Attorney for Appellant:  Matthew A. Lathrop (Law Office of Matthew A. Lathrop)

 

Attorney for Appellee:  Michael F. Scahill, Patrick D. Donahue (Cassem, Tierney, Adams, Gotch & Douglas)

 

Civil Action:  Personal Injury; Service of Process

 

Action Taken by Trial Court:  The trial court granted Debora’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Rudd’s complaint with prejudice on the basis that although Debora was served with a copy of a summons and complaint, and he had the exact same name as the person named in the complaint, he was not the same individual named and described in Rudd’s complaint.

 

Assignments of Error on Appeal:  Did the trial court err in failing to give Rudd, the nonmoving party, the benefit of all reasonable inferences at the summary judgment hearing? Did the trial court err in denying Rudd’s request for a hearing to produce evidence of constructive notice of the complaint upon Debora’s son? Did the trial court err in failing to allow Rudd to proceed with his claim against Debora’s son? Did the trial court err in allowing dismissal of Rudd’s claim when the evidence demonstrated that both Debora and his son were aware of the error in service but failed to raise the error in any way until after both the statute of limitations and the statute providing for service of process had expired?

This page was last modified on Friday, March 22, 2013