Legal Opinion

Eastin v. Franklin

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided February 6, 1991No. 16826PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHRUM, Judge.

In this case we are asked to decide if the defendant J.C. Franklin was denied due process of law when judgments were entered against him in a trial conducted without the presence of him or his lawyer. The defendant claims he and his lawyer did not receive notice of the trial setting. From our review of the record, we conclude that the defendant did not receive notice of the trial setting and, under the facts of this case, the lack of notice deprived the defendant of due process of law. We reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. PopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. Greene v. LindseySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. Albert J. Hoppe, Inc. v. St. Louis Public Service Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1950

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Cozart v. Mazda Distributors (Gulf), Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. Kerth v. Polestar EntertainmentMissouri Court of Appeals · 2010
  3. Insurance Placements, Inc. v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1996
  4. Paragon Group, Inc. v. AmplemanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. Breckenridge Material Co. v. EnloeMissouri Court of Appeals · 2006

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API