Bahena v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Nevada Supreme Court
1DissentPickering, J.
I would grant rehearing because I believe due process requires it. The $30,000,000 default judgment in this case rests on the district court choosing to believe one side’s lawyers over another’s, with no evidentiary hearing, no cross-examination, and a genuine dispute over willfulness, fault, and prejudice. The majority quotes *616dictum from Robinson v. Higuera, 760 P.2d 622, 624 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988), questioned in Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Superior Court, 863 P.2d 911 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993), that “[d]ue process does not require that a hearing be held in every case” (emphasis added) involving…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Young v. Johnny Ribeiro Building, Inc.Nevada Supreme Court · 1990
- Pinkstaff v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2009
- Nevada Power Co. v. Flour IllinoisNevada Supreme Court · 1992
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1993
- Robinson v. HigueraCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1988
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.