Legal Opinion

Hjalmarson v. Langley

Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)

Decided October 21, 1992No. 10-92-142-CVPublishedCited by 23 opinions

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

  1. BHP Petroleum Co., Inc. v. MillardTexas Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Eichelberger v. EichelbergerTexas Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Jackson v. Van WinkleTexas Supreme Court · 1983
  4. State v. OlsenTexas Supreme Court · 1962
  5. Hooks v. Fourth Court of AppealsTexas Supreme Court · 1991

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Lane Bank Equipment Co. v. Smith Southern Equipment, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Scott & White Memorial Hospital v. SchexniderTexas Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Jobe v. Lapidus, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1994
  4. QUANTO INTERN. CO., INC. v. Lloyd, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1995
  5. 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.

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

Powered by the Exa API