Also known as: procedural default · default judgment · procedural default rules
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine under which a court may enter judgment against a party that fails to appear, plead, or otherwise defend, subject to limits on the relief granted and to rules permitting the default to be set aside for good cause.
Paula Pierce sued Precision Tools for breach of contract and demanded $75,000 in damages. After the company failed to answer, the clerk entered a default judgment for $120,000 plus interest. The court later vacated the excess amount because the judgment could not exceed the relief demanded in the pleadings.
Pablo Perez missed the deadline to respond to a complaint and the clerk entered default against him. He promptly moved to set the entry aside, showing excusable neglect and a meritorious defense. The court granted the motion for good cause under the governing rule.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Patricia Patel's trial lawyer failed to object to an unconstitutional jury instruction at her state murder trial. On federal habeas, the court held that the omission constituted a procedural default that could not be excused without a showing of cause and prejudice.
Pierce Patterson challenged the admission of evidence in his state conviction but raised the federal constitutional argument only after trial. The state appellate court rejected the claim as untimely under its contemporaneous-objection rule. Federal habeas review was therefore unavailable.
Pamela Phillips sued her broker in federal court despite an arbitration clause in the customer agreement. The court enforced the clause and dismissed the action, holding that her decision to litigate constituted a procedural default of the contractual right to arbitrate.
Preston Pratt sought habeas relief based on a Supreme Court decision announced after his state conviction became final. The court refused to apply the new rule because it would constitute a retroactive change barred by the doctrine of procedural defaults in collateral review.
The petitioner must demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice from the alleged constitutional violation, or that failure to consider the claim will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
No. A state court's error in Fourth Amendment analysis does not by itself amount to a denial of a full and fair opportunity to litigate, so the claim remains subject to the independent and adequate state ground doctrine.
AEDPA codified a modified res judicata rule that limits federal habeas relief when the state court adjudicated the claim on procedural grounds that were adequate and independent.
…adherence to Rule 4 (d) (1) is less likely to give the executor actual notice than § 9, and therefore more likely to produce a default judgment. Rule 4 (d) (1) is well designed to give actual notice, as it did in this case. See note 1, supra . [^maj-12]: To the same effect, see Ragan v. Merchants Transfer Co., supra ; Cohen v.…