Fifth Circuit· 10/23/1989

Browning v. Navarro

Citations

105 B.R. 553
887 F.2d 553
1989 WL 123918

How courts have described this case

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

explaining that the law of the case doctrine “merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit to their power”
recognizing that under Texas law, “a judgment is void only when it is shown that the court had no jurisdiction of the parties or property, no jurisdiction of the subject matter, no jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment, or no capacity to act as a court”
determining the nature of an attack on a state court judgment before conducting a full-faith-and-credit analysis
describing a collateral attack as “incidental to the proceeding in which [the previous judgment] is made”
addressing a party’s attempted collateral attack on a previous state court judgment
“If the court rendering judgment lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim or if the procedural rules of the court made it impossible to raise a claim, then it is not precluded.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Davis, Duhé, Politz

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

79 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

72 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.