default occurs when a defendant engages in such egregious misconduct in the case that the trial court strikes his answer and enters default judgment against him. Hence, “death penalty.” Like Macik, the Texas ruling was a post-answer, “death penalty” default (“death penalty default,” for short). Under Texas law, a post-answer default is neither an abandonment of the defendant’s answer nor an implied confession of any issues joined by the defendant’s answer. Stoner, 578 S.W.2d at 682. Consequently, if it is to have a preclusive effect, a default judgment cannot simply be entered on the pleadings. Id. Rather, the plaintiff must offer evidence and prove his case as in a judgment upon a trial. Id.; see also Pancake v. Reliance Ins. Co (In re Pancake), 106 F.3d 1242, 1244 (5th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). However, when such evidence is presented, a
holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error holding that a state court judgment did not have a preclusive effect where the record failed to demonstrate that the state court conducted a hearing in which the party was required to meets its burden of proof holding that a federal court acting under its federal as opposed to diversity jurisdiction may also give greater preclusive effect to a state court judgment than the state courts would give holding that courts must look to the state that rendered the judgment to determine whether the courts of that state would afford the judgment preclusive effect holding that state court judgment settling shareholders state and federal claims had preclusive effect in federal court even though shareholders could not have pressed their federal claims in state court