Woolfolk v. Davis

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that with regard to the res judicata | (¡argument, “It is unnecessary to determine whether the attack by appellees on this judgment is a direct or collateral attack. The judgment is void on the face of the record.”
• holding that with regard to the res judicata 5 Cite as 2015 Ark. 442 argument, “It is unnecessary to determine whether the attack by appellees on this judgment is a direct or collateral attack. The judgment is void on the face of the record.”
• applying the statute after concluding that the appellees were never served with the complaint

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).