Comments on: Article of the Day: Christopher Voltz on the Hague Service Convention in Pennsylvania

By: Case of the Day: Johns v. Van Brunt Motors | Letters Blogatory

Case of the Day: Johns v. Van Brunt Motors | Letters Blogatory — Fri, 13 Dec 2024 02:38:08 +0000

[…] want to note the similarity of this case to the suggestion made by Chris Voltz under Pennsylvania law, which seems similar to New York law in relevant respects. Readers may want […]

By: Case of the Day: Regenicin v. Lonza Walkersville, Inc. | Letters Blogatory

Case of the Day: Regenicin v. Lonza Walkersville, Inc. | Letters Blogatory — Sun, 24 Nov 2024 23:31:06 +0000

[…] 5 permits the central authority to require translations. We have seen suggestions like this before. In particular, it’s been suggested that in jurisdictions that require only service of a […]

By: Case of the Day: Willhite v. Rodriguez-Cera | Letters Blogatory

Case of the Day: Willhite v. Rodriguez-Cera | Letters Blogatory — Mon, 03 Jul 2023 16:07:13 +0000

[…] the same point that Pennsylvania lawyer Christopher L. Voltz made in an article that I reviewed on November 7, 2011. I pooh-poohed his idea then, but now that it has been adopted by a state supreme court I guess I […]

By: The Hague Service Convention under German Law – Letters Blogatory | Letters Blogatory | Letters Blogatory

Mon, 07 May 2018 01:07:42 +0000

[…] later documents, must be served in accordance with the Convention. This view is in accord with the the view of Pennsylvania lawyer Christopher Voltz, the Supreme Court of Colorado’s holding in Willhite v. Rodriguez-Cera, and some dicta in […]

By: Case of the Day: Willhite v. Rodriguez-Cera | Letters Blogatory

Case of the Day: Willhite v. Rodriguez-Cera | Letters Blogatory — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:21:33 +0000

[…] more or less, the same point that Pennsylvania lawyer Christopher L. Voltz made in an article that I reviewed on November 7, 2011. I pooh-poohed his idea then, but now that it has been adopted by a state supreme court I guess I […]

By: Ted Folkman

Ted Folkman — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 03:37:31 +0000

I had a good email exchange with Chris Voltz today. Chris pointed to language in the Volkswagen case suggesting that the Supreme Court understands "judicial document" to refer only to documents necessary to effect service of process. I pointed to language from the Convention itself and the Hague Conference's Practical Handbook on the Convention, which makes it clear that the term "judicial documents" is to be construed broadly. I think Chris is overreading Volkswagen, but in any event the issue is more complicated than my post let on. So I will refine this in the near future.

By: Ted Folkman

Ted Folkman — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 15:09:14 +0000

In reply to Dan. Good point! But we should dare to dream, right?

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:24:14 +0000

Chinese courts never enforce US judgments anyway. But I still agree with you in that I do not think that this complies with the Hague for the reasons you mention, which means that eventually some higher PA court is likely to strike this method down.