Cox v. Johnson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the failure to join an indispensable party generally is not fundamental error because seldom will the absence of an indispensable party deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to adjudicate between the parties already joined
• holding that the failure to join an indispensable party generally is not fundamental error because seldom will the absence of an indispensable party deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to adjudicate between the parties already joined
• holding that the failure to join an indispensable party generally is not fundamental error because seldom will the absence of an indispensable party deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to adjudicate between the parties already joined
• holding complaint about nonjoinder of indispensable party ineffectual when error raised for the first time on appeal because nonjoinder was not a matter of fundamental error
• explaining that, under Rule 39 as amended, the failure to raise nonjoinder at trial is not fundamental error, and because it is not, the error 8 must be preserved in the trial court to preserve it for appeal
• disapproving of this Court's holding that failure to join a necessary party was fundamental error, but denying the writ of error because of other meritorious issues in the appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).