The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Solving Sewer Service: Fighting Fraud with Technology
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
- Publisher
- University of Arkansas Libraries
- 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