Sandra Wheeler and Darrin Green were involved in litigation in which Wheeler was not represented by.

Sandra Wheeler and Darrin Green were involved in litigation
in which Wheeler was not represented by an attorney. Green’s attorney served 64
requests for admission on Wheeler. For the most part, the requests for
admission set forth substantive legal allegations that Green needed to prove in
order to win the case, as opposed to being requests that sought admissions
regarding purely factual matters. Wheeler provided responses to the requests
but did so two days after the responses were due under applicable law of the
state of Texas. Because the responses he received from Wheeler were not
View complete question »

Sandra Wheeler and Darrin Green were involved in litigation
in which Wheeler was not represented by an attorney. Green’s attorney served 64
requests for admission on Wheeler. For the most part, the requests for
admission set forth substantive legal allegations that Green needed to prove in
order to win the case, as opposed to being requests that sought admissions
regarding purely factual matters. Wheeler provided responses to the requests
but did so two days after the responses were due under applicable law of the
state of Texas. Because the responses he received from Wheeler were not timely
and because he took the position that the requests for admission were to be
deemed admitted, Green’s attorney filed a motion for summary judgment against
Wheeler. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Green. Wheeler
retained an attorney and appealed to the intermediate court of appeals, which
affirmed the trial court’s decision. Wheeler then appealed to the Supreme Court
of Texas, arguing that even though her responses to the requests for admission
were submitted after the due date, the requests should not have been deemed
admitted, and the lower courts should not have granted summary judgment in
favor of Green. Was Wheeler correct?

View less »