Read Weiss v. Glemp , 903 P.2d 455, 458 (Wash. 1995) and use the TREACC "Explanation" to summarize this case. You have to give each letter section of one or more paragraphs.

T: Topic sentence

R: Rule statement

E: Explanation of the rules through case law

A: Application

C: counterargument

Supreme Court ar washington Rabbi Avi WEISS. Appellan onef Cardinal GLEMP, Respondent 2 Came thed cic theis headrate No. 68793-7. Oct. 13, 1995 *Moped and Error based on haveily gives is Poland and after acharges based on lack of perored jurisdiction The Superina orvice date and was issaid " Wit Campers then che thes headrate Talmadge. 2, concurred and filed opinion 7 Comes thet che thes headrate WESTLAW @ 2021 Thettwon Ramsters. No class to ongral U.S. Government Works. 141 Precrest-Mode and wiffisicray of service fora good two hours yelled at de fondue that he and was invalid server du ma after work to deferlan personally or kane sammies with was that cite this headache IS] Stanstest Clarity and Ambiguity. Multiple to obligsion to arange tice and place for I Cases thet che this headvote Attorneys and Law Firmes JewS Turn New York wrecked the it did ret realt in the killing of the beingsed to serve Glerup a a tea pots processhas in insufficiency of prices in 1913, Cikrep made a thece-day "King County during that vish Geap moved to a sness Seatle On October 29. 1993. Webs fled the prom best mornings, a legal memeTact work to the sedary where taking Ology The writes want to a reis is a resident of Poland , In July 1989. Weiss and six ofhis lover . The messenger responded To the we delivery " Clark's Papers, at 83 The pries aided SDNY. 1912) thistiming for momtierney of temp through a large plate glass windows morgh liver. Cherep delivered a parrice at a Polish shrine Detmerbuy Service) In the course of the sermon, Clerip WESTLAW @ 2021 Thomson Route -130 Cheap liked to sever t. the complaint In February 303 P.28 456. 64 USLW 2256 mermaid for Akkarperk on the phosdines under CR 12bNG) One provides for personal service (to the defendant hipy left with someone of suitable age and discretion doom 146. 130, 812 Pad 858 (199 1) (continuing dec satsalute defendant's mosion with respect to (i) the insimsand ery kee of process. (2) the statue of limitations, 13) for coppel effect of the prior Polish proceed nearall the specific terms of the statute, since the process server mustmusiccal ise escaped thei we will mik decide did set deliver the springss to Gilemp persenelly. nor WAS Saying' 63, 563 834 P 2d 1046 (1902) The parseral pride the in this case hinges as a cossi quality decisions The trial court gramed a 121 Wash ad 537 357 n. 10. rescued treswerk of the issues by the trial com W 38 275 624 6ON P 36 13TT (1991 ) We need not INSUFFICIENCY OF PROCESS decide the wilksbalmy "- 15s of substomnal compliance to to simply wah even the nuadeserts of the granted direof. . followsi'l be served by delivering a copy ver did not leave to WESTLAW @2021 Thomson Reut Clomp 137 Wash.26 726 (1289) croes with anymer. It was left me in Gikemp's soundary who came in the dow This even if we were to testy the doctrine of sobdani 853. Contrary to Weaken 151 53. 812 P 34 of the phrase "then sescent thereis" . Joe In Some bed at the house of defendant's uasl Wichere IIT Wash Ed at 150, 812 P 20 858 (emotion Thayer, 21 41-42. 5413 1:24 11 10 Serv atwo TAper. Wash ad and . 362 P 3d 237 (1961). "where in tenon ampliance applies to the service of process salute M e334 Wein new arives the wind mall service was WESTLAW @ 2021 Thereon P 103 P.24 435, 84 USLW 2259 rival overt's dismissal is affenvad Thyw. & Wash App at 40. 303 1 24 81 10 ALEXANDER MI TEKELE M PHENSON. MATSIN. because he did not come to the deck.' However, fading to how nosed "We wish to emphasize fit those who alife and place for gory ist er to otherwise accords I agree with the arudywi set forth in the reagary in York by hiding behind a phatass of priests . B dorici count in the New York case is finding 127 Wash.24 726, 903 P 24 455, 64 USL.W 2259 WESTLAW @ 2021 Themac