Ashley v. Hawkins

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that eight-month unexplained gap between service efforts shows lack of diligence as matter of law
• concluding that plaintiff who gave no explanation for delay in service failed to exercise diligence as a matter of law
• holding that if plaintiff files petition within limitations period, service of process outside limitations period may still be valid if plaintiff exercises diligence in procuring service on defendant
• providing that a plaintiff must prove diligence only when a defendant was pleaded the defense of limitations and shown that service was not timely
• holding unexplained eight month gap between service attempts did not create a fact issue as to diligence
• holding unexplained eight month gap between service attempts did not create a fact issue as to diligence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).