Morales v. Santiago

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendants were entitled to vacation of default judgment because of excusable neglect or in interest of justice
• reversing denial of motion to vacate because, among other factors, \[s]ellers moved to vacate the judgment soon after it was entered\
• stating the necessity of a proof hearing rests with the discretion of the trial judge
• vacating judgment pursuant to Rule 4:50-1(f) after a proof hearing due to \misgivings\ about the merits of plaintiff's claim even though defendant's attorney had not adequately presented defendant's case on the motion to vacate
• “Absence of essential terms from a preliminary agreement is persuasive evidence that the parties did not intend to be bound by it.”
• \[A] defendant seeking to reopen a default judgment must show that the neglect to answer was excusable under the circumstances and that he [or she] has a meritorious defense.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).