Legal Opinion

Hagar v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided April 20, 1993No. 73294PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HODGES, Chief Justice.

The sole issue before this Court is whether a default judgment entered in a garnishment proceeding without notice to the defaulting party is valid when the name and the address of the party or the party’s attorney is readily available. We find that it is not.

Bobby Hagar, plaintiff, recovered a judgment against defendant Michael Meeks. On the ninth, fifteenth, and twenty-second of December, Hagar issued garnishment summons on Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (Goodyear), Meeks’ employer. Goodyear answered each of the summons and sent a check to the court clerk. Then on…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Renfrow v. IttlesonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
  2. Lindsey v. Kingfisher Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
  3. Bailey v. CampbellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. B & C Investments, Inc. v. F & M National Bank & TrustCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1995
  2. James E. Phifer, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Social ServicesCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API