Abstract

Comment: Service of Process
The decline of the geographical-power concept of jurisdiction has extended the possibility of in personam jurisdiction over nonresident defendants. This extension poses a difficult question for courts regarding the ritual of constructive service of process as "notification" to an absent defendant. At the center of the dispute is a conflict between providing an effective avenue of relief for injured resident citizens of the state and ensuring that due process guarantees afforded an absent defendant are maintained.

In Walker v. Dallas, the plaintiffs were injured in an automobile accident. They brought an action against the nonresident driver of the other car and obtained a default judgment. Despite extensive efforts to locate the defendant, she could not be found and personal service was not effected. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed its previous stance and held that the constitutional requirements of due process are not offended where a plaintiff has exercised due diligence in attempting to personally serve an absent nonresident motorist prior to service by publication. The application of constructive service is limited by the court to those cases involving nonresident motorists where the insurer is on notice of the lawsuit.

This Comment first explores the historical development of constructive service of process in an in personam action involving a nonresident defendant. After an analysis of the court's reasoning in Walker, the Comment then discusses the effect of the decision on Arizona law.

How to Cite