Legal Opinion

City of Denison v. Grisham

Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)

Decided August 8, 1986No. 05-86-00447-CVPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

AKIN, Justice.

Both parties to a civil suit have filed petitions for writs of mandamus complaining of discovery orders of the trial court. Donald and Dixie Lee Medford filed suit in the 336th Judicial District Court, Judge Ray F. Grisham presiding, to recover damages from the City of Denison for the flooding of their property. The City’s petition complains of that portion of the trial court’s April 8, 1986, discovery order refusing to compel delivery of certain writings used to refresh the Medfords’ memories during their depositions. The Med-fords’ petition seeks to vacate another provision…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. James Julian, Inc. v. Raytheon Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1982
  2. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1978
  3. S & A Painting Co. v. O.W.B. Corp.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. Al-Rowaishan Establishment Universal Trading & Agencies, Ltd. v. Beatrice Foods Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1982
  5. Winters v. WintersCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1955

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Pope v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2006
  2. Barrett v. MummertMissouri Court of Appeals · 1994
  3. Pope v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2006
  4. Pope, Curtis Wayne Jr.Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2006
  5. in Re the State of Texas, Ex Rel Kim OggCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API