showing of a meritorious defense (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

showing of a meritorious defense in California

5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1952–2025 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Beard v. Beardgreen
cal · 1940 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1952–1957
2 sentences

1957(Beard v. Beard, 16 Cal.2d 645, 648 [ 107 P.2d 385 ].) Appellant argues further that since the defendant did not make a motion to set aside the default entry, and since the order did not set aside the default entry, the court had no power to permit defendant to file an answer.

1952(Beard v. Beard (1940), 16 Cal.2d 645, 649 [ 107 P.2d 385 ].) The proposed answer did not deny the fact or the contents of the publication, nor did it allege the truth of the publication.

22
FIDELITY CREDITOR SERVICE, INC. v. Brownegreen
calctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025(See Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc. (1988) 485 U.S. 80, 86 [trial court ruling that a “default judgment must stand absent a showing of a meritorious defense to the action in which judgment was entered without proper notice to appellant” was “plainly infirm” under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment]; Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 206 [defendant who undisputedly was never served in the action was entitled to an order vacating a renewal of judgment without establishing a meritorious defense].) Finally, Whiting argues “that the trial

11
Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc.green
scotus · 1988 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025(See Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc. (1988) 485 U.S. 80, 86 [trial court ruling that a “default judgment must stand absent a showing of a meritorious defense to the action in which judgment was entered without proper notice to appellant” was “plainly infirm” under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment]; Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 206 [defendant who undisputedly was never served in the action was entitled to an order vacating a renewal of judgment without establishing a meritorious defense].) Finally, Whiting argues “that the trial

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Lovell v. Deyoe neutral
cal · 1940
2 sentences

1957(Beard v. Beard, 16 Cal.2d 645, 648 [ 107 P.2d 385 ].) Appellant argues further that since the defendant did not make a motion to set aside the default entry, and since the order did not set aside the default entry, the court had no power to permit defendant to file an answer.

1952(Beard v. Beard (1940), 16 Cal.2d 645, 649 [ 107 P.2d 385 ].) The proposed answer did not deny the fact or the contents of the publication, nor did it allege the truth of the publication.

21952–1957
Rappleyea v. Campbell green
cal · 1994
1 sentence

2015(In re Marriage of Park (1980) 27 Cal.3d 337, 346 .) Rather, a defendant “must show facts indicating a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle her to a fair adversary hearing.” (Ibid.) 5 In Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975 (Rappleyea), the California Supreme Court held the defendant’s unverified answer to the unverified complaint constituted a showing of a meritorious defense because it responded to the complaint’s allegations.

12015–2015
Park v. Park green
cal · 1980
1 sentence

2015(In re Marriage of Park (1980) 27 Cal.3d 337, 346 .) Rather, a defendant “must show facts indicating a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle her to a fair adversary hearing.” (Ibid.) 5 In Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975 (Rappleyea), the California Supreme Court held the defendant’s unverified answer to the unverified complaint constituted a showing of a meritorious defense because it responded to the complaint’s allegations.

12015–2015
Brozey v. Alesen green
calctapp · 1931
2 sentences

1958We believe that under the circumstances of this case the order made by the trial court was proper. *63 Appellant has cited the cases of Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16 [ 164 P. 894 ], Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641 [ 3 P.2d 68 ], to support her contention that a showing of a meritorious defense must be made before a default judgment can be set aside.

1958We believe that under the circumstances of this case the order made by the trial court was proper. *63 Appellant has cited the cases of Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16 [ 164 P. 894 ], Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641 [ 3 P.2d 68 ], to support her contention that a showing of a meritorious defense must be made before a default judgment can be set aside.

11958–1958
Trice v. Southern Pacific Co. green
cal · 1916
1 sentence

1958We believe that under the circumstances of this case the order made by the trial court was proper. *63 Appellant has cited the cases of Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16 [ 164 P. 894 ], Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641 [ 3 P.2d 68 ], to support her contention that a showing of a meritorious defense must be made before a default judgment can be set aside.

11958–1958
Matson v. John Batto & Sons green
cal · 1916
1 sentence

1958We believe that under the circumstances of this case the order made by the trial court was proper. *63 Appellant has cited the cases of Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16 [ 164 P. 894 ], Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641 [ 3 P.2d 68 ], to support her contention that a showing of a meritorious defense must be made before a default judgment can be set aside.

11958–1958
Lee v. Colquhoun green
cal · 1917
2 sentences

1958We believe that under the circumstances of this case the order made by the trial court was proper. *63 Appellant has cited the cases of Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16 [ 164 P. 894 ], Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641 [ 3 P.2d 68 ], to support her contention that a showing of a meritorious defense must be made before a default judgment can be set aside.

1958We believe that under the circumstances of this case the order made by the trial court was proper. *63 Appellant has cited the cases of Matson v. John Batto & Sons, 173 Cal. 800 [ 161 P. 1144 ]; Lee v. Colquhoun, 175 Cal. 16 [ 164 P. 894 ], Brozey v. Alesen, 116 Cal.App. 641 [ 3 P.2d 68 ], to support her contention that a showing of a meritorious defense must be made before a default judgment can be set aside.

11958–1958

Where else courts name it

NY 33 (1961–2026) AL 30 (1983–2024) TX 13 (1977–2022) NJ 11 (1953–2025) IL 9 (1910–1990) PA 9 (1973–2019) MI 8 (1962–2020) TN 8 (1986–2015) GA 7 (1997–2023) AZ 6 (1966–2019) NC 5 (1937–2009) CA 5 (1952–2025) IN 5 (1996–2020) WA 5 (1931–2019) MO 5 (1981–2001) AR 5 (1895–1981) FL 4 (1978–1988) ND 4 (1980–2022) UT 4 (2000–2015) SC 3 (1983–2011) MT 3 (1959–2021) ID 3 (1994–2012) DC 3 (1985–2004) IA 2 (1942–1976) MN 2 (1924–1928) WY 2 (1945–2021) OH 2 (2002–2003) NM 2 (1973–2005) OK 2 (1988–1988) MD 2 (1988–2010)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check