Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Herrera v. Springer Corporation

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided April 16, 1973No. 1024Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSutin, Judge

I concur with the majority opinion that U.S.F.&G. is not an indispensable party, and I dissent for failure to set aside the default judgment, or at least to reverse the judgment to try the issue of damages.

I. U.S.F.&G. is not an Indispensable Party.

Defendant contends that U.S.F.& G. was an indispensable party. This was an afterthought. Under this record, U.S.F.&G. had no claim against defendant for reimbursement of compensation benefits because U.S.F.&G. was to be reimbursed from plaintiff’s judgment. U.S.F.&G. was, therefore, not an indispensable party.

The reason for the lengthy analysis in…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Tozer v. Charles A. Krause Milling Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951
  2. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Howard R. Hughes, and Hughes Tool Company and Raymond M. HollidayCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1971
  3. Tolson v. HodgeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1969
  4. Jackson v. Southwestern Public Service CompanyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1960
  5. James G. McHenry and Donald G. McHenry v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1959

22 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