context: Defendant is correct in its assertion that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer allow for service of process by mail unless it is allowed by the state where the district court presiding over the action sits or it is allowed in the state where process was served.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 218 F.3d 863, 868
citation_a.parenthetical: noting that delivery under the federal rules means personally served, not merely mailed
citation_a.sentence: See Langley v. Graham, 322 S.C. 428, 472 S.E.2d 259, 261 (App.1996) (noting that “the new federal rules have abolished service by mail, except to the extent permitted by applicable state practice”); see also, Larsen v. Mayo Med. Ctr., 218 F.3d 863, 868 (8th Cir.2000) (noting that delivery under the federal rules means personally served, not merely mailed).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 472 S.E.2d 259, 261
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that "the new federal rules have abolished service by mail, except to the extent permitted by applicable state practice"
citation_b.sentence: See Langley v. Graham, 322 S.C. 428, 472 S.E.2d 259, 261 (App.1996) (noting that “the new federal rules have abolished service by mail, except to the extent permitted by applicable state practice”); see also, Larsen v. Mayo Med. Ctr., 218 F.3d 863, 868 (8th Cir.2000) (noting that delivery under the federal rules means personally served, not merely mailed).