Cary v. Alford

Texas Supreme Court

Cary v. Alford

203 S.W.3d 837, 49 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1057, 2006 Tex. LEXIS 897, 2006 WL 2708445

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 22, 2006

Docket05-1018

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 203 S.W.3d 837 (Cary v. Alford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cary v. Alford, 203 S.W.3d 837, 49 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1057, 2006 Tex. LEXIS 897, 2006 WL 2708445 (Tex. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this combined bill-of-review and medical-malpractice appeal is whether the defendant’s affidavit was sufficient to establish that his failure to answer was an accident rather than conscious indifference. The trial court held that it was, set aside a default judgment for $1,951,188.00, and granted a new trial. Two years later, the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant.

The Twelfth Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the defendant’s bill-of-review affidavit was conclusory. — S.W.3d -, 2005 WL 2665442. We recently clarified the standard of review when service papers are lost. See Fidelity and Guar. Ins. Co. v. Drewery Constr. Co., 186 S.W.3d 571, 575-76 (Tex.2006) (per curiam).

Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, we grant the petition for review without reference to the merits, vacate the court of appeals’ judgment, and remand this case to that court to reconsider this issue in light of our recent decision. See Tex.R.App. P. 59.1, 60.2(f).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this combined bill-of-review and medical-malpractice appeal is whether the defendant’s affidavit was sufficient to establish that his failure to answer was an accident rather than conscious indifference. The trial court held that it was, set aside a default judgment for $1,951,188.00, and granted a new trial. Two years later, the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant.

The Twelfth Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the defendant’s bill-of-review affidavit was conclusory. — S.W.3d -, 2005 WL 2665442. We recently clarified the standard of review when service papers are lost. See Fidelity and Guar. Ins. Co. v. Drewery Constr. Co., 186 S.W.3d 571, 575-76 (Tex.2006) (per curiam).

Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, we grant the petition for review without reference to the merits, vacate the court of appeals’ judgment, and remand this case to that court to reconsider this issue in light of our recent decision. See Tex.R.App. P. 59.1, 60.2(f).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 S.W.3d 837, 49 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1057, 2006 Tex. LEXIS 897, 2006 WL 2708445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cary-v-alford-tex-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack