Legal Opinion

Harris v. Shoults

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided June 8, 1994No. 2-93-270-CVPublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FARRIS, Justice.

By writ of error, Emerson Harris appeals a default judgment against him in a suit by David T. Shoults and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (collectively “State Farm”) to recover damages from a vehicle accident allegedly caused by Harris. By four points of error, Harris challenges the judgment. Because State Farm did not serve the amended petition on Harris, we sustain point of error one, set aside the default judgment, and remand the case for a new trial. We do not address points of error two through four because they do not afford Harris additional relief…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Radelow-Gittens Real Property Management v. Pamex Foods, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1987
  2. Castanon v. Monsevais, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1985

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Palomin v. Zarsky Lumber Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2000
  2. State v. Tamminga, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)1996
  3. Caprock Construction Co. v. Guaranteed Floorcovering, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1997
  4. Holman v. Family Health PlanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Ness v. Digital Dial Communications, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1999

11 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