At least that’s how the Texas Supreme Court’s version of Matthew 7:13 reads. In a per curiam opinion, the Court recently demonstrated its vigilance in policing overly-broad discovery orders. In this product liability case, the plaintiff sought all documents of consumer complaints regarding "the sidestep on any model backhoe." John Deere objected to the request as overly
Discovery of Net Worth Continues to Simmer
At least since the Texas Supreme Court’s 1994 opinion in Transportation Insurance Company v. Moriel, questions of the right to discovery of a defendant’s net worth information, the definition of "net worth", and the scope of information relating to net worth have been simmering in the district courts and in the courts of appeals. The latest opinion on the subject has been issued by the Fourteenth District Court of Appeals and the concurring opinion makes case for why it’s time for the Texas Supreme Court to address these thorny issues. The majority’s opinion in In re Jacobs may be found here. The concurring opinion may be found here.Continue Reading Discovery of Net Worth Continues to Simmer
Agreed Venue in a Major Transaction–Not So Fast
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held that the major transaction exception to the prohibition on venue agreements only applies if the value of the transaction is contained in the agreement itself. In this original proceeding, the parties entered into a settlement agreement involving real estate in which the parties agreed that venue of any dispute
Targeting Mandamus
The Amarillo Court of Appeals recently issue an opinion in In re Lagaite, in which the Court dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. The petitioner complained of medical treatment he received while incarcerated in a Texas prison and evidently named the medical doctor as the respondent. Noting that Texas
Order Denying Dissolution of Garnishment Not Appealable
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed that orders denying a motion to dissolve a prejudgment writ of garnishment are interlocutory and, therefore, not appealable. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal. The Court’s memorandum opinion in MRI Country Bend Invest. Fund, L.P. v. Capitol Painting & Construction, Inc. dismissing the interlocutory appeal can be found here.
If you
Dallas Court Says No to Depo of President Bush
The Dallas Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs were not entitled to take the depositions of George W. and Laura Bush in relation to the ongoing dispute over the location of the proposed Bush Presidental Library. The Court stated:
For reasons of comity and the policy considerations discussed in [United States v.]Poindexter, we
Mandamus and Supersedeas
The San Antonio Court of Appeals has issued an interesting opinion in a mandamus proceeding involving what is described as an unsuperseded judgment. In In re Romero, Gonzalez & Benavides, L.L.P., there was a dispute between the law firm of Romero, Gonzalez & Benavides (RG&B) and attorney Mark Cantu regarding the right to a
Waiver of Jury Trial Clause: How far does it go?
The Beaumont Court of Appeals has held that a contractual waiver of jury clause does not extend to non-contractual claims brought against non-signatory joint tortfeasors or alleged conspirators.
In In re Wild Oats Markets, Inc., Kuykendahl-WP Retail, L.L.P. ("Kuykendahl") had a lease agreement with Wild Oats Markets, Inc., which contained a contractual waiver-of-jury-trial clause.
Challenging Void Orders and Motion to Reinstate
Void orders of a trial court may occur in a number of different circumstances. The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals discusses one such circumstance in Silguero v. State.
The trial court dismissed the State’s action for forfeiture for want of prosecution and the State timely filed a motion to reinstate, but the motion was not verified. More than 30 days after the dismissal, the trial court granted the motion to reinstate. The trial court subsequently rendered a judgment of forfeiture and the Silgueros filed an appeal as well as a petition for writ of mandamus, each asserting that the trial court’s order of reinstatement was void.Continue Reading Challenging Void Orders and Motion to Reinstate
Application of TAA Necessarily Excludes FAA
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held that a provision calling for application of the Texas General Arbitration Act necessarily excludes application of the Federal Arbitration Act. First, the Court held that because the motion to abate was made under the FAA, the Court had jurisdiction to review the trial court’s order by mandamus. Next, the