Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 27 (1996)

Page:   Index   Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27

680

HENDERSON v. UNITED STATES

Thomas, J., dissenting

filed it in the District Court. Although we have never undertaken to define "forthwith" as it is used in the SAA, it is clear that the term "connotes action which is immediate, without delay, prompt, and with reasonable dispatch." Amella v. United States, 732 F. 2d 711, 713 (CA9 1984) (citing Black's Law Dictionary 588 (5th ed. 1979)). See also Dickerman v. Northern Trust Co., 176 U. S. 181, 192-193 (1900). Whatever problems Henderson may have had in serving his complaint upon the United States, the 148-day delay can hardly be described as process served forthwith under even the most generous definition of the term. I respectfully dissent.

Page:   Index   Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27

Last modified: October 4, 2007