Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc.green2 sentences2002Ctr., 485 U.S. 80, 85-86 , 108 S.Ct. 896 , 99 L.Ed.2d 75 (1988) (holding that Texas bill of review procedure, which required a showing of a meritorious defense even when the defendant receives no notice of suit, violated the due process clause); Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d at 408 . 2002Ctr. , 485 U.S. 80, 85-86 (1988) (holding that Texas bill of review procedure, which required a showing of a meritorious defense even when the defendant receives no notice of suit, violated the due process clause); Goldsmith , 582 S.W.2d at 408 . | 2 | 9 |
Lopez v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2022See Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 84-85 (1988); see also Lopez v. Lopez, 757 S.W.2d 721, 723 (Tex. 1988)(holding that requiring claimant to show meritorious defense, where he had no notice of original trial, violated due process). 1988Parenthetically, we note that in the recent case of Lopez v. Lopez, 757 S.W.2d 721 (Tex.1988), the Supreme Court has qualified the requirement as to a showing of a meritorious defense by stating that in a case where a defendant was not properly notified of a hearing date, to require such a showing as a condition of granting a new trial would violate due process rights under the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. | 1 | 3 |
City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authoritygreen1 sentence1988However, in Enemational Corp. v. Exploitation Engineers, 705 S.W.2d 749, 751 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.), the Court, without noting the Costello case, and citing City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex.1979), held that the Crad-dock standard was not applicable to an appeal from a summary judgment. | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Peace, Matter Ofgreen2 sentences1988Matter of Marriage of Peace, 631 S.W.2d 790, 794 (Tex.App. — Amarillo 1982, no writ). 1 In Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., the United States Supreme Court held that in a bill of review, a showing of a meritorious defense is not necessary in setting aside a judgment entered without proper notice to appellant, stating: ... 1988Co., supra; Matter of Marriage of Peace, supra. The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial. . | 1 | 1 |
Enernational Corp. v. Exploitation Engineers, Inc.green1 sentence1988However, in Enemational Corp. v. Exploitation Engineers, 705 S.W.2d 749, 751 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.), the Court, without noting the Costello case, and citing City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex.1979), held that the Crad-dock standard was not applicable to an appeal from a summary judgment. | 1 | 1 |
Whitney v. L & L REALTY CORPORATIONgreen1 sentence1977We find it unnecessary to examine and consider that portion of Postell’s pleadings in which he alleges certain “meritorious defenses.” Postell contends, in his first point of error, that the judgment is void because the record does not reflect that he was amenable to process under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 2031b as required by Whitney v. L & L Realty Corporation, 500 S.W.2d 94, 95-6 (Tex.1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Baker v. Goldsmith
green
2 sentences2002Ctr., 485 U.S. 80, 85-86 , 108 S.Ct. 896 , 99 L.Ed.2d 75 (1988) (holding that Texas bill of review procedure, which required a showing of a meritorious defense even when the defendant receives no notice of suit, violated the due process clause); Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d at 408 . 2002Ctr. , 485 U.S. 80, 85-86 (1988) (holding that Texas bill of review procedure, which required a showing of a meritorious defense even when the defendant receives no notice of suit, violated the due process clause); Goldsmith , 582 S.W.2d at 408 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
McDaniel v. Hale
green
1 sentence2020Eastin has cited no authority to support his contention that the Peralta exception applies when a defendant was properly served with citation, fully participated in the lawsuit, but failed to receive timely notice of the judgment.”); cf. Maree v. Zuniga, 577 S.W.3d 595 , 601 n.3 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (“Presumably, the rule in Caldwell does not apply in cases in which the equitable-bill-of-review plaintiff made an appearance or waived service of process in the prior case.”); McDaniel v. Hale, 893 S.W.2d 652 , 663 n.23 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1994, writ denied) (“We note, o | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Vernon Kent Maree and Front Row Parking Inc. v. Baldemar (Val) Zuniga
green
1 sentence2020Eastin has cited no authority to support his contention that the Peralta exception applies when a defendant was properly served with citation, fully participated in the lawsuit, but failed to receive timely notice of the judgment.”); cf. Maree v. Zuniga, 577 S.W.3d 595 , 601 n.3 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (“Presumably, the rule in Caldwell does not apply in cases in which the equitable-bill-of-review plaintiff made an appearance or waived service of process in the prior case.”); McDaniel v. Hale, 893 S.W.2d 652 , 663 n.23 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1994, writ denied) (“We note, o | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Mathis v. Lockwood
green
1 sentence2006Mathis , 166 S.W.3d at 744 (citing Lopez , 757 S.W.2d at 723 ); Mahand , 60 S.W.3d at 375 ; J.H. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Mahand v. Delaney
green
1 sentence2006Mathis , 166 S.W.3d at 744 (citing Lopez , 757 S.W.2d at 723 ); Mahand , 60 S.W.3d at 375 ; J.H. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Alexander v. Hagedorn
green
2 sentences1977The rules of equity, which would require a showing of a meritorious defense under Alexander v. Hagedorn, 148 Tex. 565 , 226 S.W.2d 996 (1950), are inapplicable to an attack on a void judgment. 1977The rules of equity, which would require a showing of a meritorious defense under Alexander v. Hagedorn, 148 Tex. 565 , 226 S.W.2d 996 (1950), are inapplicable to an attack on a void judgment. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.