Case Citator › Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc.

Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc.

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

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
133 S.W.2d 124
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
155 of 155
Citing cases (total)
1,627
Treatment dates
1988–2002
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. Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc. has two confirmed limited treatments, listed below, after review of all 155 flagged citations. Lopez v. Lopez held that due process removes Craddock's meritorious-defense requirement when the defaulting party lacked notice of trial.
More on how this was screened

Carpenter v. Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp. later held Craddock unavailable after summary judgment when the nonmovant knew of the missed response before judgment and could seek relief under the procedural rules. The other opinions applied Craddock, enforced its default-judgment setting, reported another court's act, reproduced a party's argument, or used “overruled” for a motion or appellate issue.

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.

1,627 later cases cite Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc.; 155 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 Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc.?

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 Court held that due process removes Craddock's meritorious-defense requirement when a defaulting party had no actual or constructive notice of the trial setting.

    Lopez v. Lopez · Supreme Court of Texas · filed

    Because the record here establishes that Guadalupe had no actual or constructive notice of the trial setting, the lower courts erred in requiring him to show that he had a meritorious defense as a condition to granting his motion for new trial.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Court held that Craddock does not govern a motion for new trial after summary judgment when the nonmovant knew of its missed response before judgment and had procedural remedies available.

    Carpenter v. Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp. · Supreme Court of Texas · filed

    We hold that Craddock does not apply to a motion for new trial filed after summary judgment is granted on a motion to which the nonmovant failed to timely respond when the respondent had notice of the hearing and an opportunity to employ the means our civil procedure rules make available to alter the deadlines Rule 166a imposes.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc. 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