Case Citator › McEwen v. Harrison

McEwen v. Harrison

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
345 S.W.2d 706
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
49 of 49
Citing cases (total)
49
Treatment dates
2012
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. McEwen v. Harrison has one confirmed overruling in part listed below. The Supreme Court of Texas held that its rule cannot prevent a person who received no constitutionally adequate notice from challenging a void judgment.
More on how this was screened

All 49 flagged citations have been read.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

49 later cases cite McEwen v. Harrison; 49 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on McEwen v. Harrison?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • A judgment entered without constitutionally adequate notice may be challenged despite McEwen's restriction on setting aside final default judgments.

    In the Interest of E.R. · Supreme Court of Texas · filed

    McEwen v. Harrison, 162 Tex. 125, 345 S.W.2d 706, 711 (1961), has conflicting language, but its pronouncement on that subject must yield to contrary precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court. Accordingly, the statute cannot place a temporal limit on a challenge to a void judgment filed by a defendant who did not receive the type of notice to which she was constitutionally entitled.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads McEwen v. Harrison and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace