KESSLER

v.

TREAT, UNITED STATES MARSHAL; MORGAN V. SAME; CARPENTER V. SAME; WHITTLE V. SAME; WILCOX V. SAME; BRADEN V. SAME; ROYSTER V. SAME; SMITH V. SAME; BURROUGHS V. SAME; MCDOWELL V. SAME

Citator

Cited By (22 total)

• Bell v. ALL Persons Claiming ANY Estate, 198 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
  …32. It should be noted that the Federal Courts have held that notice of the motion is required under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which rule is substantially similar to Rule 1.38(b). See Wetmore v. Karrick (1907) 205 U.S. 141, 27 S.Ct. 434, 51 L.Ed. 745; 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd Ed., § 60.28 [3], p. 327. These authorities do not hold that a new service of process is necessary to bring a party back into court upon a motion for relief pursuant to Rule 1.38(b). Therefore, appellan…
• Bass v. Hoagland, 172 F.2d 205 (5th Cir. 1949)
  …f his rights and -is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal.” A -case in the federal courts having a bearing on the failure in the present case -to give notice that a judgment as by default would be asked is Wetmore v. Karrick. 205 U.S. 141, 27 S.Ct. 434, 51 L. Ed. 745. There the suit was upon a judgment in a case where counsel for defendant had withdrawn as here, after -adverse verdict and pending proceedings -to review it. The case was continued and after several terms was dismissed on a general c…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Verone Marin Fehlhaber v. Fehlhaber, 681 F.2d 1015 (5th Cir. 1982)
  …L.Ed.2d 262 (1982) (“A state may not grant preclusive effect ... to a constitutionally infirm judgment and other state and federal courts are not required to accord full-faith- and-credit to such a judgment.”); Wetmore v. Karrick, 205 U.S. 141, 149, 27 S.Ct. 434, 436, 51 L.Ed. 745 (1907) (full faith and credit does not apply to a judgment rendered without jurisdiction “or otherwise wanting in due process of law”); Simer v. Rios, 661 F. 2d 655, 663 (7th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1773, 72…