Rodriguez v. Tinsman & Houser, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiffs complete failure to attempt service due to a miscommunication failed to raise a fact issue
• holding that a delay in service due to professional courtesy does not demonstrate due diligence as a matter of law
• holding that due diligence will not be found as a matter of law if no excuse for lack of service of citation is provided, or if the lapse of time and the plaintiff’s acts, or inaction, conclusively disprove diligence
• stating that a lack of due diligence can be found as a matter of law “if the lapse of time and the plaintiff’s acts, or inaction, conclusively negate diligence”
• upholding summary judgment based on expiration of limitations because plaintiff failed to explain twenty-five day delay between expiration of limitations and service
• upholding summary judgment based on expiration of limitations because plaintiff failed to explain 25 day delay between expiration of limitations and service

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).