deciding there was no post-answer default judgment because the appellant’s counsel appeared and participated at trial
How later courts described this case
- deciding there was no post-answer default judgment because the appellant’s counsel appeared and participated at trial
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by In the Interest of K.C., 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 4884 (2002)
75 S.W.3d 126, 131 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, no pet.), overruled on other grounds by In re K.C., 88 S.W.3d 277, 279
The opinion
SANDEE BRYAN MARION, Justice,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent because I do not believe that the Craddock rule applies. This was not, in my opinion, a post-answer “default” because the appellant’s counsel appeared and participated at the trial. Accordingly, I would conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for new trial.