Legal Opinion

Halberstam v. Cokeley

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided April 1, 1994No. 93-155PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CARDINE, Justice.

David and Jean Halberstam (Halberstams) appeal from a default judgment. The Hal-berstams challenge the propriety of the entry of default and the subsequent determination by the district court that a damages hearing was unnecessary because the damages were liquidated.

We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The Halberstams raise the following issues:

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in granting default judgment without a hearing on damages?

2. Did the court abuse its discretion in denying the motion to set aside entry of default and default judgment?

FACTS

On October 1,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Martin v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1986
  2. The Independent Oil and Chemical Workers of Quincy, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1988
  3. Vanasse v. RamsayWyoming Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Amernational Industries, Inc. v. Action-Tungsram, Inc., ElectroexportimportCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991
  5. Spitzer v. SpitzerWyoming Supreme Court · 1989

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Multiple Resort Ownership Plan, Inc. v. Design-Build-Manage, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Houston v. SmithWyoming Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Whitney v. McDonoughWyoming Supreme Court · 1995
  4. In Re ZmetsWyoming Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Blittersdorf v. EikenberryWyoming Supreme Court · 1998

6 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