Legal Opinion
University of Texas at Austin v. Vratil
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided September 17, 1996No. 96-3220PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
Petitioners are National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I state colleges and universities. They seek a writ of prohibition to vacate those portions of the district court’s order of sanctions dated May 29, 1996, referring to them as “real parties in interest” and requiring them to respond to plaintiffs’ interrogatories. See Law v. NCAA 167 F.R.D. 464 (D.Kan.1996).
“[A] writ of prohibition is a drastic and extraordinary remedy which should be granted only when the petitioner has shown his right to the writ to be clear and undisputable and that the actions of the court were…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, Subpoena to Ray M. Vargas. Sangre De Cristo Community Mental Health Service, Inc. v. United States of America, Ray M. Vargas v. Santiago Campos, United States District JudgeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1983
- Sperry Products, Inc. v. Association of American RailroadsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Sturdevant v. PaulsenCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000
- Sydnes v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
- Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'nDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
- In re: McCarthey v.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2004
- Fagin v. GilmartinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.