Hjalmarson v. Langley
Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
THOMAS, Chief Justice.
Attorneys Mike Hjalmarson, Eric Nielsen, and Elliott Flood, the relators, seek a writ of mandamus to set aside a sanction order entered against them under Rule 13. They contend the order is void because it is based on a motion that was not filed until after their client, Nat Gonzalez, took a nonsuit against Kent Moore Cabinets, Inc. Kent Moore, the real party in interest, argues that the relators are not entitled to mandamus because they had an adequate remedy by a direct appeal. We hold that the order is void and conditionally grant the writ.
On January 6, 1992,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- BHP Petroleum Co., Inc. v. MillardTexas Supreme Court · 1991
- Eichelberger v. EichelbergerTexas Supreme Court · 1979
- Jackson v. Van WinkleTexas Supreme Court · 1983
- State v. OlsenTexas Supreme Court · 1962
- Hooks v. Fourth Court of AppealsTexas Supreme Court · 1991
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Lane Bank Equipment Co. v. Smith Southern Equipment, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2000
- Scott & White Memorial Hospital v. SchexniderTexas Supreme Court · 1996
- Jobe v. Lapidus, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1994
- QUANTO INTERN. CO., INC. v. Lloyd, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1995
- Solomon, Lambert, Roth & Associates, Inc. v. Kidd, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1995
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.