Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)

Citation: Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
Parent Document: Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2013-08-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5147069/clark-v-bridges/ ↗

Full Text

1,018 chars

However, the rules applied by the court in Cooter have changed again. This time, *152however, the change is not to this court’s rules, but to the Superior Court’s. Until a change in 2005 (which took effect after the events in Cooter), Superior Court Civil Rule 77(d) required, in part, that “[i]mme-diately upon the entry of an order or judgment the clerk shall serve a notice of the entry by mail in the manner provided for in Rule 5(b).” (Emphasis added.) However, the amended rule 77(d) now requires only that “the clerk shall serve a notice of entry in the manner provided for in Rule 5(b).” Super. Ct. Civ. R. 77(d)(1) (2006 & 2013) (emphasis added). Rather than requiring service by mail in all cases, Superi- or Court Civil Rule 5(b) permits service in a variety of fashions, including in-person delivery (5(b)(2)(A)(i)), leaving the document at the person’s office or home (5(b)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii)), mail (5(b)(2)(B)), leaving a copy with the clerk’s office (5(b)(2)(C)), and electronic delivery (5(b)(2)(D)).

Other Sections in This Document (34)

Full Text