Legal Opinion

Middleton v. Murff

Texas Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 1985No. C-3840PublishedCited by 65 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

2Per curiam

This is an appeal from a direct attack on a “consent judgment” rendered by the district court after receiving notice that certain parties, petitioners herein, no longer consented. The consent judgment was not appealed to the court of appeals. This direct attack, brought in the district court, is a motion to vacate the consent judgment and does not conform to the requirements of a bill of review. The trial court refused to set the consent judgment aside. The court of appeals affirmed this refusal by holding that the consent judgment was not void, and that therefore the…

3Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McEwen v. HarrisonTexas Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Freeman v. FreemanTexas Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Deen v. KirkTexas Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Glenn W. Casey Construction, Inc. v. Citizen's National BankCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1980
  5. Middleton v. MurffCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1984

4Cited by65 opinions

  1. Mapco, Inc. v. ForrestTexas Supreme Court · 1990
  2. State Ex Rel. Latty v. OwensTexas Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Browning v. PlackeTexas Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Reiss v. ReissTexas Supreme Court · 2003
  5. in Re State of TexasTexas Supreme Court · 2015

60 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