Legal Opinion

Steinke v. Mann

Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)

Decided December 10, 2008No. 10-08-00079-CVPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FELIPE REYNA, Justice.

James Mann sued Donald Steinke for breach of contract. The trial court granted Mann’s motion for substitute service under Rule of Civil Procedure 106. When Steinke failed to appear and answer, the trial court granted a default judgment. In this restricted appeal, Steinke contends that default judgment was improper because errors are apparent on the face of the record. We reverse and remand.

RESTRICTED APPEAL

A restricted appeal is available for the limited purpose of providing a party that did not participate at trial with the opportunity to correct an erroneous…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hubicki v. FestinaTexas Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Reynold A. Vespa v. National Health Insurance Company, Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)2003
  3. Campbell v. Fincher, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)2002
  4. Rivers v. Viskozki, Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)1998

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Juan Silva and Winter Garden Homes v. Juan Saucedo and Dora Saucedo, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2018
  2. in the Interest of B.S., a Child, Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)2022

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

Powered by the Exa API