Thanks to David Roach for forwarding the following:
"More on Court seals for other states proof its universal:

PA
In affirming the dismissal, the court held that plaintiff's failure to obtain a valid summons with the signature of the clerk of the court and the court seal failed to create personal jurisdiction over defendants. Further, the service upon defendants' office manager was not in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, and therefore was not effective in conferring personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants, given that they had not waived the right to effective service. Ayres v. Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., 99 F.3d 565 United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit September 20, 1996, Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) ; November 1, 1996, Filed No. 95-7676 Reporter 99 F.3d 565 * | 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 28755 ** | 72 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 966 | 35 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1125

Oklahoma
In the context of Okla. Comp. Stat. § 785 (1921), the purpose of requiring the trial judge's signature to the setting of the case-made to be attested by the clerk of the court is to inform all concerned that he did actually sign the certificate. The seal of the court is required to be affixed for the reason the appellate court cannot take judicial knowledge of the signature of the clerk. The court clerk is custodian of the seal and it is not presumed that anyone else will have access thereto, and no one other than the clerk could affix such seal to the certificate of the trial judge.W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Kelly, 1929 OK 224 Supreme Court of Oklahoma May 28, 1929, Opinion Filed No. 20217. Reporter 1929 OK 224 * | 137 Okla. 22 ** | 278 P. 267 *** | 1929 Okla. LEXIS 391 ****

Texas
Execution is a harsh method of conveyance in the collection of debts, and the procedure prescribed by the law should be strictly followed, and the provision of Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 1729, that all process other than subpoenas issued out of the district court shall be authenticated with the court's seal, is mandatory, and a writ of execution without such seal is void, and a sale thereunder a nullity. The common law was adopted by Act of Congress of the Republic of Texas, and Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, arts. 1852, 2180, and article 1729, following the common law, provides that process of courts of record shall be attested by the clerk and bear the impress of the court seal. Courts may not by judicial construction dispense with the requirement of Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 1729, that a writ of execution bear the court's seal, by declaring that an execution conveyance transferred legal title where the seal was omitted. SOUTHWESTERN SETTLEMENT & DEV. CO. v. RANDOLPH Court of Appeals of Texas Mar 22, 1922 240 S.W. 655

Tennessee
The court finds that "the warrant was in the usual form, except that it issued under the hand of the magistrate alone, without affixing his seal thereto;" and, in reversing the sentence of death, PECK, J., for the court, says: "The authorities amply sustain the position of the counsel for the prisoner that a warrant commanding an arrest on behalf of the state, not having the magistrate's seal, is void;" citing 2 Inst. 52; 1 Salk. 174; 1 Hale, P.C. 577; 2 Hale, P.C. 110, 111; 2 Hawk. P.C. c. 3, § 21; Com. Dig. "Improvement," H, 7; 4 Bl. Comm. 290, (quoted supra;) and State v. Curtis, 1 Hayw. (N.C.) 471. And this case has been recognized in later decisions. Bell v. Farnsworth, 11 Humph. 609; Galvin v. State, 6 Cold. 283, 291. Clough v. United States, 47 F. 791 Circuit Court, W.d. Tennessee October 21, 1891 No Number in Original Reporter 47 F. 791 * | 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1512"

Maine
The image of the seal, technical though perhaps it be, is so interwoven with our rules, and understood and advised by the profession as basic, that it is not to be abridged this side of the law-making power. "So long as a seal is required to be affixed, though we may not be able to discover its real use, yet we must not dispense with what the law requires." MELLEN, C. J. in Porter v. Haskell, 11 Me. 177.MILLER v. WISEMAN, 125 Me. 4 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, Cumberland October 1, 1925, Decided No Number in Original Reporter 125 Me. 4 * | 130 A. 504 ** | 1925 Me. LEXIS 66