Personal Service
Q: Is a Federal Judge bound by rulings of the states supreme court that he is in. What is the definition of personal service.
A: In a federal court lawsuit, for cases (or, most of the time, material issues in a case) not preempted or otherwise governed by overriding federal law, i.e., where a state law issue is material, the federal court is bound by the then most definitive applicable rulings of the case-relevant state. In other words (but with a potentially important caveat) Yes. (The caveat is that the law of the state which ought (will) apply isn't necessarily the law as decreed by the highest court of the state the federal court (where the lawsuit is pending) is "in": Although the location of the federal court trying the case probably will be a factor in determining what state's law applies -- very often it is the state that federal court is "in" -- the law of another state may be determinitive in a particular case, depending on the facts (not provided by the poster).) Additional (but, I would dare bet and not just guess, probably dispositive) cautionary: The issue of primary/real interest to the poster almost certainly is not the question he is asking, at least not in the form he asks it. To the contrary, in the case of interest to him there probably is no dispute that the federal court is "bound" by this-or-that principle of state law and, as well, probably no dispute about which state's law will govern. In other words -- and noted here only because *how* one poses a "legal" question can (even if inadvertently) be misleading -- that this-or-that state-law principle applies (or "binds" the federal court) probably is not what troubles the poster. The actual issue, the real issue, for him very probably is instead simply this: He *knows* (that is, believes that he knows) that the answer to the question provided by the state-law principle in issue is, emphatically, "Yes" whereas his adversary or the judge, or both, know (that is, say), equally forcefully, that the answer is "No" -- yet, disregarding the cardinal requirement that all law-related questions of any importance will be fact-specific, the utterly fact-less nature of his posting dis-enables the reader from knowing (opining) who is (probably) correct. What is the definition of personal service. The poster means "personal service" of some document, not the providing of "personal service" such as, say, diaper-changing? If the former: "personal service" of a document means either (obviously!) the delivery by an authorized person of that document to the person to whom it is addressed or some form of what to a lay person seems to be "personal" delivery directed/approved by a court (or which a court rules in a particular case is/was "personal service" (even if in some epistemological or just arguable sense it wasn't (personal service))). Where the "person" to be served isn't a human being but rather some organization/enterprise (e.g., a corporation, a partnership, a state or city agency, etc.), by a combination of statutory and decisional law in each jurisdiction, a mode of delivery which will constitute "personal service" is prescribed (e.g., in most places, if a corporation, personal delivery to an officer thereof). Here, too, the poster's question is too vague to answer because of its conclusory/non-factual statement. That is, techanically, each jurisdiction prescribes (or a court may prescribe) how to effect "personal service"