their objections”); Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Kirkevold, 87 F.R.D. 317, 324 (D.Minn.1980) (stating purpose of service of process rules is to make likely that actual notice be brought to defendant). In deciding whether an individual is “then residing therein” for purposes of service of process, there must be a nexus between the individual and the defendant that establishes some reasonable assurance that notice would reach the defendant. For example, a relationship of confidence, including but not limited to a familial relationship, may establish a nexus and support the conclusion that notice would reach the defendant. See Nowell v. Nowell, 384 F. placed in charge of father’s home in his absence was residing therein); Wichert v. Cardwell, 117 Wash.2d 148, 812 P.2d 858, 860 (1991) (<HOLDING>). But see Cleaves v. Funk, 76 F.2d 828, 829-30
holding that defendant could challenge search of luggage belonging to overnight guests staying in his house holding that squatter in home did not have standing to challenge search of house where he was staying holding daughter watching parents home and staying overnight met residing requirement holding that an overnight guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his hosts home holding that defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in gambling records stored under his parents bed although he did not reside regularly at his parents home he kept clothing there and had occasionally remained overnight