As we’re discussing personal jurisdiction in civil procedure, we get to the topic of the Pennoyer rule of establishing jurisdiction by service within the state. After this topic I am no longer able to concentrate in class as various scenarios unfold in my mind of lawyers handing over complaints to defendants and then saying “you got served!” in the most obnoxious way possible. And then making gang signs or something.
So erm… Does this phrase have a legal origin? My google-fu is weak and I just get stuff about that breakdancing(?) movie…
In the urban milieu in which this phrase appeared, getting served with legal papers – whether a warrant or notice of civil court proceedings – is a wake up call: you’re not getting away with whatever shit you tried to pull. You’re going to jail, you’re going to pay child support, you’re getting evicted … you’re going to face some consequences. The extension of this concept to other situations is clear from the movie’s titular line: “You’re just mad… 'cause tonight you suckas got served!” (the protagonists have lost a dance “battle” for the first time, to a crew they had dismissed as rich wannabes). They have been “served” notice that their ordinary talents are no match for the other crew’s determination, hard work, and/or sheer awesomeness, and they must either step up or step down.
The phrase was also popularized by “pimp slang.” A pimp is “served” when Pimp tells Pimp 2 that one of Pimp 1’s girls is no longer under his managment and is now in Pimp 2’s stable. See, e.g. US v. Charles Floyd Pipkins, a.k.a. Sir Charles, Andrew Moore, Jr., a.k.a. Batman, 412 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2005). This is a personal and professional embarassment for the pimp who is “served.”
I thought this was some oddball joke but, no, that’s a real case. 
Yes, but I see now I gave the wrong cite - the one I gave is a very short opinion after a remand (pimpcitin’ aint easy). The original opinion that contains the discussion of “serving” is US v. Charles Floyd Pipkins, a.k.a. Sir Charles, Andrew Moore, Jr., a.k.a. Batman, 378 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir.2004). It’s a fascinating read.
Excerpt: “Pipkins and KK worked the track together, with KK on-site and Pipkins appearing as necessary to prevent any disputes from escalating. The following anecdote illustrates such an agreement. JF6, one of Pipkins’s prostitutes, formerly worked for Worm. While Worm was in jail, he gave JF6 to “Fantastic,” an unindicted pimp, but Worm later claimed that he had not been properly served. After Worm was released, KK was working the track one evening when Worm arrived and verbally assaulted JF6, who had moved to Pipkins from Fantastic. KK called Pipkins on a cell phone to inform him of the commotion, and Pipkins soon arrived to speak with Worm. Pipkins told Worm that because he got JF6 from someone else (and had apparently properly served that other pimp), Worm should consider himself served as well.”
I suspect this phrase may have a broader origin than just legal service. It’s worth noting that in agriculture, “serving” is what bulls do to cows. (At least, that’s what the farmers call it, presumably because it’s more dignified than “wild bovine nooky”.) I remember this from the James Herriott novels, so the usage is at least 50 years old.
That’s actually the one I found. I just searched for US v. Charles Floyd Pipkins, without the rest of the citation and landed on that PDF. I’ll have to settle down with it later tonight for a read.
Great case pravnik, you can tell the circuit judge was pretty amused/fascinated by the whole pimpin’ culture in the opinion. Very informative.
It’s pretty interesting that pimps’ use of “service” is similar to the legal use, a form of notification. I’m tempted to believe that the pimps picked it up from their lawyers and consequently the mainstream use came via the pimps.
Slow Moving Vehicle, that’s another compelling possibility. Since getting served in that context is pretty much getting fucked, which is fairly consistent with its popular use.
If only there was a way confirm/dismiss these theories…
I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to say “Would you like fries with that? Cause you just got served.”
So what are the legal ramifications?
I imagine if someone comes up to you and hands you an envelope, you could say “oh, more stupid handbill advertising” and throw it away. Would you then be blameless?
If the person says something like “I have served you with a summons” then you cannot claim in court, “I did not know what it was, I threw it away without reading it.”
After all, you are not legally obligated to read before discarding every piece of crap someone forces into yuor hand on the street or drops on your table in restaurant etc.
So is the obligation not only to hand the official document over, but be sure the recipient is aware that it is a legal document for him?
Mail would be different because the assumption would be that a person is more likely to read mail addressed to them, than to read every random piece of crap that shows up in their peripheral vision. Which is also why the requirement to personally hand it, not to just drop it on the floor in front of them?