The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Milestone Operating Inc.'s motion for new trial, holding that Milestone failed to meet its burden to satisfy Craddock's first element. Milestone alleged that Donald Harlan (director and registered agent) did not recall being served with the plaintiff's petition on March 19, 2009, even after reviewing his office notes and speaking to the people with whom he works about that day's events. Milestone's failure to answer was neither intentional nor the result of consciously indifferent conduct. The court of appeals' judgment is reversed and remanded. Texas Supreme Court, No. 11-0647, 10-26-2012.
Milestone Operating Inc. v. Exxonmobil Corp.
Tx. Sup. Ct.
November 5, 2012
This article requires premium access
This article requires premium access to Texas Lawyer. Please sign in or subscribe to read the full text.