ROJAS
v.
ALEXANDER'S DEPARTMENT STORE, INC.; CONNORS ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; DENENBURG ET UX. V. UNITED STATES; SAFIR V. NICKERSON, JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK; CITY OF HENDERSON ET AL. V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA (NEVADA ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST); CITY OF YONKERS, NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES ET AL. (TWO CASES); KING V. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA ET AL.; EATON V. VIRGINIA; TWITTY V. MAASS, SUPERINTENDENT, OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY; SANDERS V. KENTUCKY; ANDERSON V. ALCOA ET AL.; BROWN V. LUNGREN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA; KELLY V. CALIFORNIA; MORRIS ET AL. V. DONREY OF NEVADA, INC., ET AL.; ZETTLEMOYER V. FULCOMER, SUPERINTENDENT, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT HUNTINGDON, ET AL.; IN RE SEARCY, CUMMINGS V. UNITED STATES; EBKER V. TAN JAY INTERNATIONAL ET AL.; GARGALLO V. GARGALLO; STEPHENS V. ALABAMA; CARROLL ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK & TRUST ET AL. V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THRIFT SUPERVISION, ET AL.; CENTENNIAL ET AL. V. PLACER DOME U. S., INC.; DHALIWAL V. WOODS DIVISION, HESSTON CORP., ET AL.; IN RE PEERNOCK, MCCULLEY V. UNITED STATES; A'GIZA V. SAN BERNARDINO WEST SIDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. ET AL.; PARKS V. SAFFLE, WARDEN; SERNA V. ARIZONA; LAWS V. NORTH CAROLINA; EDWARDS V. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ET AL.; CRAWFORD V. MICHIGAN; MASON V. CALIFORNIA; MCKENZIE V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RENTAL HOUSING COMMISSION; FERDIK V. RICHARDSON ET AL.; PYLE V. CITY OF TUCSON ET AL.; GILREATH V. ZANT, WARDEN; ALEXANDER V. MISSOURI STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS; PRINCE V. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES; PURVIN V. BERGENS ET AL.; KLEINSCHMIDT V. FINLEY, KUMBLE, WAGNER, HEINE, UNDERBERG, MANLEY, MEYERSON & CASEY, P. A., ET AL.; FORTE V. MASSACHUSETTS; JARVI V. NOBLE ET AL.; JOHNSON V. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; IN RE KNOWLES, JARVI V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; SUEING V. BROWN ET AL.

U.S. | 1991-12-02
Nos. 90-1649; No. 90-1670; No. 90-1674; No. 90-1740; No. 90-1771; No. 90-1857; No. 90-1945; No. 90-7054; No. 90-7781; No. 90-8059; No. 90-8083; No. 90-8281; No. 90-8295; No. 90-8324; No. 90-8405; No. 90-8417; No. 90-8471; No. 90-8480; No. 91-41; No. 91-66; No. 91-116; No. 91-160; No. 91-174; No. 91-223; No. 91-5042; No. 91-5046; No. 91-5066; No. 91-5090; No. 91-5096; No. 91-5115; No. 91-5170; No. 91-5171; No. 91-5178; No. 91-5190; No. 91-5235; No. 91-5237; No. 91-5294; No. 91-5301; No. 91-5391; No. 91-5392; No. 91-5404; No. 91-5432; No. 91-5458; No. 91-5498; No. 91-5557; No. 91-5562; No. 91-5616
Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.
502 U.S. 1000 Supreme Court of the United States (1991)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

This case involves a personal injury lawsuit against a restaurant owner, a default judgment, and subsequent disputes over insurance coverage and proper party defendants.


Holding

The appellate court affirmed the default judgment against Connor and declined to relinquish jurisdiction for a Rule 1.540 motion, later affirming the judgment per curiam.


Facts & Procedural History

Gregory sued Connor for personal injuries sustained at Lake Susan Lodge, resulting in a default judgment. Connor appealed, arguing the judgment was ag…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court

ante, p. 809; ante, p. 899; ante, p. 809; ante, p. 811; ante, p. 812; ante, p. 816; ante, p. 821; ante, p. 824; ante, p. 827; ante, p. 831; ante, p. 832; ante, p. 841; ante, p. 842; ante, p. 844; ante, p. 902; ante, p. 806; ante, p. 852; ante, p. 853; ante, p. 857; ante, p. 859; ante, p. 862; ante, p. 864; No. 91-174. No. 91-223. No. 91-5042. No. 91-5046. No. 91-5066. No. 91-5090. No. 91-5096. No. 91-5115. No. 91-5170. No. 91-5171. No. 91-5178. No. 91-5190. No. 91-5235. No. 91-5237. No. 91-5294. No. 91-5301. No. 91-5391. No. 91-5392. No. 91-5404. No. 91-5432. No. 91-5458. No. 91-5498. No. 91-5557. No. 91-5562. No. 91-5616. ante, p. 864; ante, p. 867; ante, p. 806; ante, p. 872; ante, p. 873; ante, p. 874; ante, p. 875; ante, p. 876; ante, p. 911; ante, p. 879; ante, p. 879; ante, p. 880; ante, p. 882; ante, p. 882; ante, p. 885; ante, p. 885; ante, p. 890; ante, p. 890; ante, p. 891; ante, p. 893; ante, p. 913; ante, p. 895; ante, p. 806; ante, p. 914; and ante, p. 926. Petitions for rehearing denied. Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw