Stauffer v. Hevener

How courts have described this case

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

• holding a petition to open and a petition to strike are distinct remedies and not subsumed within each other
• stating that it struck the judgment “because of Vranka’s lack of due diligence to revive her lien or collect on her judgment during the preceding thirty-two … years”
• requiring court to look exclusively at answer attached to petition to open in deciding if there is meritorious defense is “overly strict interpretation of Rule 237.3(a)”
• failure to attach entirety of previously-filed answer raising meritorious defenses to petition to open did not preclude determination that party raised meritorious defense, as opposing party had notice of anticipated defenses
• expressly stating that the court struck the judgment “based on [its] equitable powers”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).