judgment and the trial court held in favor of Building Venture as a matter of law. The time to have presented a meritorious defense was at this time. Bush and Miller’s lawyer received notice of this hearing and appeared on their behalf. This fact alone disproves their claim that they were prevented from presenting a meritorious defense. But even if it did not, the trial in 1990 disposed of the case against a third defendant, Mosby, not Bush and Miller; their rights were not adjudicated at that time, having been adjudicated previously. The only other event Bush and Miller had a right to receive notice of for due process claims was entry of the final judgment signed January 25, 1991. See e.g., Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 108 S.Ct. 896, 99 L.Ed.2d 75 (1988) (<HOLDING>). But neither this appeal nor the bill of
recognizing that an officers forcible rape of a woman violates her substantive due process rights holding that due process rights were not violated when alien claimed a lack of actual notice but his attorney received notice holding that lack of notice of charges in disciplinary proceedings violates the due process clause holding a judgment in the absence of notice violates due process rights holding that in a proceeding to terminate parental rights the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof violates the due process clause and that due process requires at least a clear and convincing evidence standard