Internet Service of Process: A Constitutionally Adequate Alternative?
This paper considers whether Internet service satisfies the requirements of constitutional due process and applicable rules governing procedure. The validity of Internet service under current rules governing procedure must be assessed on a case by case basis. Given the popularity of the Internet in...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The University of Chicago law review 1999-07, Vol.66 (3), p.943-967 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 967 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 943 |
| container_title | The University of Chicago law review |
| container_volume | 66 |
| creator | Cantor, Rachel |
| description | This paper considers whether Internet service satisfies the requirements of constitutional due process and applicable rules governing procedure. The validity of Internet service under current rules governing procedure must be assessed on a case by case basis. Given the popularity of the Internet in society, Internet service of process will often be constitutionally adequate and may even be constitutionally required. Moreover, under certain state rules governing alternative forms of service, Internet service may already be procedurally adequate. Because Internet service is efficient, secure, reliable, and, in some instances, constitutionally necessary, rules governing service should permit Internet service. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.2307/1600435 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60824331</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>1600435</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>1600435</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c232t-303e512123794fe1f1a72952cea48382ea752ccb4923f05516d93fb258a8befc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10N9LwzAQB_AgCs4p_gtFRZ-qufxoE1-kjKmDgYIKvpUsu0JH12xJOth_b8f2JOzpuONzx_El5BroI-M0f4KMUsHlCRmA5jpVUv-ekkE_g1QLLc7JRQgLSilkWg7IeNJG9C3G5Av9praYuCr59M5iCM9JkYxcG2Idu1i71jTNNinmuO5MxKRodosm1ht8uSRnlWkCXh3qkPy8jr9H7-n0420yKqapZZzFlFOOEhgwnmtRIVRgcqYls2iE4oqhyfvGzoRmvKJSQjbXvJoxqYyaYWX5kNzv7668W3cYYrmsg8WmMS26LpQZVUxwDj28-QcXruu_bULJQCgqlMp7dHsMAafAMgmgevWwV9a7EDxW5crXS-O3JdByl3h5SLyXd3u5CNH5o-wPoid7MA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1301265118</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Internet Service of Process: A Constitutionally Adequate Alternative?</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><creator>Cantor, Rachel</creator><creatorcontrib>Cantor, Rachel</creatorcontrib><description>This paper considers whether Internet service satisfies the requirements of constitutional due process and applicable rules governing procedure. The validity of Internet service under current rules governing procedure must be assessed on a case by case basis. Given the popularity of the Internet in society, Internet service of process will often be constitutionally adequate and may even be constitutionally required. Moreover, under certain state rules governing alternative forms of service, Internet service may already be procedurally adequate. Because Internet service is efficient, secure, reliable, and, in some instances, constitutionally necessary, rules governing service should permit Internet service.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0041-9494</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-859X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/1600435</identifier><identifier>CODEN: UCLRA2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Law School</publisher><subject>Civil procedure ; Comments ; Constitutional Law ; Defendants ; Due process of law ; Email ; Facsimiles ; Federal court decisions ; Internet ; Internet services ; Jurisdiction ; Litigation ; Mail services ; Methods ; Plaintiffs ; Service of process ; State court decisions ; Summons ; Summonses ; United States</subject><ispartof>The University of Chicago law review, 1999-07, Vol.66 (3), p.943-967</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1999 The University of Chicago</rights><rights>Copyright University of Chicago Law School Summer 1999</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1600435$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/1600435$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27846,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cantor, Rachel</creatorcontrib><title>Internet Service of Process: A Constitutionally Adequate Alternative?</title><title>The University of Chicago law review</title><description>This paper considers whether Internet service satisfies the requirements of constitutional due process and applicable rules governing procedure. The validity of Internet service under current rules governing procedure must be assessed on a case by case basis. Given the popularity of the Internet in society, Internet service of process will often be constitutionally adequate and may even be constitutionally required. Moreover, under certain state rules governing alternative forms of service, Internet service may already be procedurally adequate. Because Internet service is efficient, secure, reliable, and, in some instances, constitutionally necessary, rules governing service should permit Internet service.</description><subject>Civil procedure</subject><subject>Comments</subject><subject>Constitutional Law</subject><subject>Defendants</subject><subject>Due process of law</subject><subject>Email</subject><subject>Facsimiles</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Internet services</subject><subject>Jurisdiction</subject><subject>Litigation</subject><subject>Mail services</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Plaintiffs</subject><subject>Service of process</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>Summons</subject><subject>Summonses</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0041-9494</issn><issn>1939-859X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>0R3</sourceid><sourceid>HYQOX</sourceid><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>~OC</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNp10N9LwzAQB_AgCs4p_gtFRZ-qufxoE1-kjKmDgYIKvpUsu0JH12xJOth_b8f2JOzpuONzx_El5BroI-M0f4KMUsHlCRmA5jpVUv-ekkE_g1QLLc7JRQgLSilkWg7IeNJG9C3G5Av9praYuCr59M5iCM9JkYxcG2Idu1i71jTNNinmuO5MxKRodosm1ht8uSRnlWkCXh3qkPy8jr9H7-n0420yKqapZZzFlFOOEhgwnmtRIVRgcqYls2iE4oqhyfvGzoRmvKJSQjbXvJoxqYyaYWX5kNzv7668W3cYYrmsg8WmMS26LpQZVUxwDj28-QcXruu_bULJQCgqlMp7dHsMAafAMgmgevWwV9a7EDxW5crXS-O3JdByl3h5SLyXd3u5CNH5o-wPoid7MA</recordid><startdate>19990701</startdate><enddate>19990701</enddate><creator>Cantor, Rachel</creator><general>University of Chicago Law School</general><general>University of Chicago Press</general><general>University of Chicago, acting on behalf of the University of Chicago Law Review</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0R3</scope><scope>ABKTN</scope><scope>FYSDU</scope><scope>GHEHK</scope><scope>HYQOX</scope><scope>IOIBA</scope><scope>JRZRW</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>~OC</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7UB</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19990701</creationdate><title>Internet Service of Process: A Constitutionally Adequate Alternative?</title><author>Cantor, Rachel</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c232t-303e512123794fe1f1a72952cea48382ea752ccb4923f05516d93fb258a8befc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Civil procedure</topic><topic>Comments</topic><topic>Constitutional Law</topic><topic>Defendants</topic><topic>Due process of law</topic><topic>Email</topic><topic>Facsimiles</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Internet services</topic><topic>Jurisdiction</topic><topic>Litigation</topic><topic>Mail services</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Plaintiffs</topic><topic>Service of process</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>Summons</topic><topic>Summonses</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cantor, Rachel</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Archive Online Collection 1.2</collection><collection>Periodicals Archive Online JSTOR Titles</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 07</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 08</collection><collection>ProQuest Historical Periodicals</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 29</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 35</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Periodicals Archive Online Collection 1</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The University of Chicago law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cantor, Rachel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Internet Service of Process: A Constitutionally Adequate Alternative?</atitle><jtitle>The University of Chicago law review</jtitle><date>1999-07-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>66</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>943</spage><epage>967</epage><pages>943-967</pages><issn>0041-9494</issn><eissn>1939-859X</eissn><coden>UCLRA2</coden><abstract>This paper considers whether Internet service satisfies the requirements of constitutional due process and applicable rules governing procedure. The validity of Internet service under current rules governing procedure must be assessed on a case by case basis. Given the popularity of the Internet in society, Internet service of process will often be constitutionally adequate and may even be constitutionally required. Moreover, under certain state rules governing alternative forms of service, Internet service may already be procedurally adequate. Because Internet service is efficient, secure, reliable, and, in some instances, constitutionally necessary, rules governing service should permit Internet service.</abstract><cop>Chicago, Ill</cop><pub>University of Chicago Law School</pub><doi>10.2307/1600435</doi><tpages>25</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0041-9494 |
| ispartof | The University of Chicago law review, 1999-07, Vol.66 (3), p.943-967 |
| issn | 0041-9494 1939-859X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60824331 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Periodicals Index Online |
| subjects | Civil procedure Comments Constitutional Law Defendants Due process of law Facsimiles Federal court decisions Internet Internet services Jurisdiction Litigation Mail services Methods Plaintiffs Service of process State court decisions Summons Summonses United States |
| title | Internet Service of Process: A Constitutionally Adequate Alternative? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T09%3A44%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Internet%20Service%20of%20Process:%20A%20Constitutionally%20Adequate%20Alternative?&rft.jtitle=The%20University%20of%20Chicago%20law%20review&rft.au=Cantor,%20Rachel&rft.date=1999-07-01&rft.volume=66&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=943&rft.epage=967&rft.pages=943-967&rft.issn=0041-9494&rft.eissn=1939-859X&rft.coden=UCLRA2&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/1600435&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E1600435%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1301265118&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=1600435&rfr_iscdi=true |