Cited by 2Legal processes and jurisprudenceLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsEducation, Law, and Society

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Solving Sewer Service: Fighting Fraud with Technology

Open access
Gottshall, Adrian·2018·Arkansas Law Review

Abstract

Fraudulently obtained default judgments ruin lives. Many defendants are ignorant of their cases and therefore do not appear for court. Defendants suffer dire consequences as victims of falsified service of process. They learn of their lawsuits after their wages are garnished, assets seized, or when their poor credit precludes them from obtaining housing or a new job. For decades, fraudulent service of process has been wide-spread in high volume court dockets, such as landlord and tenant, debt collection, and small claims matters. Judgments granted to the debt collector plaintiff disproportionately affect low-income communities of color. Some plaintiffs obtained such judgments against defendants who live in mostly black neighborhoods at a rate 18 times higher than it did against defendants in mostly white neighborhoods. Despite this knowledge, the current rules of procedure in most jurisdictions do not require reliable verifications of service. Process servers complete the proof of service themselves, thereby “proving” their service through self-verification. When proof of service relies only on the “honor system,” this is unreliable and unfair, and fails to protect defendants when more reliable technological verifications are available. The integrity of our judicial system is challenged when service-of-process rules fail to use technological verifications to protect litigants from fraud. The current service of process standard requires “notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action.” Since the U.S. Supreme Court articulated this standard in 1950, the circumstances have simply changed. Therefore, so must our service of process requirements. Traditional methods of service, which lack reliable verifications, are not reasonably calculated to provide constitutionally adequate notice. The technological advancements that have occurred in the decades following Mullane, provide new and better circumstances under which notice must be provided.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.54119/alr.bxgb3116

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 2

Metadata

Authors
Gottshall, A.
Affiliations
University of the District of Columbia (US)
Corresponding author
Gottshall, Adrian
Venue
Arkansas Law Review
Published
2018-01-01
Volume
70
Issue
4
Pages
813
ISSN
0004-1831 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2884513024
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nd
Locations
  • Arkansas law review (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • Arkansas law review
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
  • Social Sciences › Law › Education, Law, and Society
Keywords
service of process, default judgment, notice requirements, due process, process servers, debt collection, small claims, judicial integrity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Solving Sewer Service: Fighting Fraud with Technology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.54119/alr.bxgb3116
The paper
Gottshall, A. (2018). Solving Sewer Service: Fighting Fraud with Technology. Arkansas Law Review. https://doi.org/10.54119/alr.bxgb3116