Legal Opinion
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Hiatt
New Mexico Supreme Court
Decided April 6, 1994No. 20379PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
■ OPINION
BACA, Justice.
Defendants-Appellants, James A. Hiatt and Laurel Ann Hiatt (the Hiatts), appeal the denial of their motion to set aside a default judgment entered against them. The Hiatts argued to the trial court that the judgment should have been set aside under SCRA 1986, 1-060(B)(4) (Repl.Pamp.1992), because the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over them when it entered the default judgment, and that, consequently, the judgment was void. On appeal, the Hiatts present a single issue: Whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction over them when it entered the default…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Tercero v. ROMAN CATH. DIOCESE OF NORWICHNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2002
- Santa Fe Technologies, Inc. v. Argus Networks, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2001
- Marchman v. NCNB Texas National BankNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1995
- Ferrell v. Allstate InsuranceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2008
- Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1996
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.