National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Ninth Court of Appeals
Texas Supreme Court
1DissentPhillips, Chief Justice
I respectfully dissent. Regardless of whether the court of appeals erred, or whether that error constituted an abuse of discretion, I believe that National Union’s rights could be adequately protected through the normal appellate process.
Since mandamus is supposed to be an extraordinary remedy, we have historically used care to ensure that litigants do not make frivolous or misguided attempts to secure the writ. In our recent writings, we have emphasized that mandamus is not available where the relator has an adequate remedy by appeal, see Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840-44 (Tex.1992)…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Walker v. PackerTexas Supreme Court · 1992
- Johnson v. Fourth Court of AppealsTexas Supreme Court · 1985
- O'CONNOR v. First Court of AppealsTexas Supreme Court · 1992
- Mapco, Inc. v. ForrestTexas Supreme Court · 1990
- Peeples v. Honorable Fourth Supreme Judicial DistrictTexas Supreme Court · 1985
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.