Case Citator › Alexander v. Hagedorn

Alexander v. Hagedorn

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

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
226 S.W.2d 996
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
30 of 30
Citing cases (total)
30
Treatment dates
1979–1998
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Alexander v. Hagedorn remains the general bill of review rule, with two confirmed limits listed below. The Texas Supreme Court excused its ordinary requirements where a defendant was not served or where erroneous official court information prevented a new-trial motion.
More on how this was screened

All 30 flagged citations have been read. Gramercy Insurance Co. v. State applied a separate statutory bill of review for sureties; it expressly left the general equitable remedy and Alexander's requirements available.

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.

30 later cases cite Alexander v. Hagedorn; 30 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 Alexander v. Hagedorn?

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

Limited

  • The Texas Supreme Court held that a defendant who was not served need not prove a meritorious defense or opposing-party misconduct to obtain a bill of review, qualifying Alexander's ordinary requirements.

    Caldwell v. Barnes · Supreme Court of Texas · filed

    Alexander v. Hagedorn, 148 Tex. 565, 226 S.W.2d 996, 998 (1950). To set aside a judgment by bill of review, “petitioner must ordinarily plead and prove (1) a meritorious defense to the cause of action alleged to support the judgment, (2) that he was prevented from making by the fraud, accident or wrongful act of his opponent, (3) unmixed with any fault or negligence of his own.” ... If he was not served, constitutional due process relieves him of showing a meritorious defense ... he is not required to show that Barnes’s fraud, accident or wrongful act prevented him from presenting such a defense
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • Official court error that prevents a motion for new trial can excuse a bill of review plaintiff from proving misconduct by the opposing party, qualifying Alexander's second requirement.

    Baker v. Goldsmith · Supreme Court of Texas · filed

    In Alexander v. Hagedorn, 148 Tex. 565, 568, 226 S.W.2d 996, 998 (1950), this court stated that in order to be successful upon a bill of review the complainant must “allege and prove: (1) a meritorious defense to the cause of action alleged to support the judgment, (2) which he was prevented from making by the fraud, accident or wrongful *407act of the opposite party, (3) unmixed with any fault or negligence of his own.” Accord, Texas Machinery & Equipment Co. v. Gordon Knox Oil & Exploration Co., 442 S.W.2d 315, 317-18 (Tex.1969); Gracey v. West, 422 S.W.2d 913, 915 (Tex.1968). The second requirement of Hagedorn, however, has been qualified in later cases. To the extent there is reliance on the erroneous official information given by an official court functionary preventing the filing of a motion for new trial, the bill of review plaintiff is excused from showing the wrongful conduct, fraud or accident of the opposite party.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Alexander v. Hagedorn 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