Smith v. Lippmann

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that letter amounted to a timely filed answer because it was signed by defendant, identified parties and case, included defendant’s address, and acknowledged receipt of the citation and petition
• stating that pro se defendant’s letter was not in the standard form of an answer but “nevertheless gave the court a timely response acknowledging receipt and acceptance of [plaintiff’s] citation and petition”
• concluding pro se respondent’s fax requesting an extension of time, which contained her signature, phone number, cause number, trial court, and identified her status as a party-respondent in the case, constituted an answer sufficient to defeat a no-answer default judgment
• letter that was signed by defendant, identified parties and case, included defendant’s current address, and acknowledged receipt and acceptance of citation and petition constituted timely filed appearance
• “Since Mr. Smith timely filed a written answer, he was entitled to . . . notice of the default judgment hearing [required by Rule 245].”
• a timely filed pro se letter from defendant identifying the parties, the case, and defendant’s current address was a sufficient answer to defeat default judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).