Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.creatorUpchurch, Hal R.
dc.date.accessioned2018-10-30T20:46:06Z
dc.date.available2018-10-30T20:46:06Z
dc.date.issued1973
dc.identifier.citation5 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 146en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2346/82038
dc.description.abstractThe court in Rangel held that the unsworn controverting plea is an amendable defect. Compares the liberal and strict constructionist viewpoints of Rule 86 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure in light of the Rangel decision. Concludes that the liberal viewpoint is the most beneficial because the substantive aspects of the controverting please would be independent of the formal oath requirements and rule 86 would supplement, rather than supplant, rules 1, 5(b), and 63. Suggests that, in practice, the Texas Supreme Court is in accord with the liberal viewpoint. Ultimately, suggests that the Texas Supreme Court formally adopt the liberal viewpoint and holds that an unsworn controverting plea is an amendable defect.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherTexas Tech Law Reviewen_US
dc.subjectControverting pleaen_US
dc.subjectAmendable defecten_US
dc.subjectRule 86en_US
dc.subjectLiberal viewpointen_US
dc.subjectStrict constructionist view pointen_US
dc.subjectLorenzo Grain Co-op v. Rangelen_US
dc.subjectCase noteen_US
dc.titleAn Unsworn Controverting Plea May Be Amended After Expiration of the Ten-Day Filing Perioden_US
dc.title.alternativeCivil Procedure—An Unsworn Controverting Plea May Be Amended After Expiration of the Ten-Day Filing Perioden_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem