Difference between revisions of "Peralta v. Heights Medical Center"
From Conservapedia
m (bold) |
DavidB4-bot (Talk | contribs) (→top: clean up & uniformity) |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:The Texas court held that the default judgment must stand absent a showing of a meritorious defense to the action in which judgment was entered without proper notice to appellant, a judgment that had substantial adverse consequences to appellant. By reason of the [[Due Process Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]], that holding is plainly infirm. | :The Texas court held that the default judgment must stand absent a showing of a meritorious defense to the action in which judgment was entered without proper notice to appellant, a judgment that had substantial adverse consequences to appellant. By reason of the [[Due Process Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]], that holding is plainly infirm. | ||
− | [[ | + | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] |
Latest revision as of 17:24, July 13, 2016
In Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., 485 U.S. 80 (1988), a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that states cannot require proof of a meritorious defense to undo a judgment if the defendant was never properly served with the complaint.
Justice Byron White wrote the decision. He held:
- The Texas court held that the default judgment must stand absent a showing of a meritorious defense to the action in which judgment was entered without proper notice to appellant, a judgment that had substantial adverse consequences to appellant. By reason of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that holding is plainly infirm.