Legal Opinion
Tinsley v. Downey
Court of Appeals of Texas
Decided January 16, 1992No. C14-91-00489-CVPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MAJORITY OPINION
ON SECOND MOTION FOR REHEARING
SEARS, Justice.
On second motion for rehearing, the pri- or opinion is withdrawn and this opinion is substituted. The second motion for rehearing is overruled.
In this original proceeding, relators Tins-ley et al., urge us to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent, the Honorable Dan Downey, to withdraw his order striking four expert witnesses in Cause No. 86-23440. On June 4, 1991, we granted leave to file petition for writ of mandamus. We now conditionally grant the writ.
Relator filed plaintiffs original petition on May 22, 1986, against…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1985
- Johnson v. Fourth Court of AppealsTexas Supreme Court · 1985
- TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. PowellTexas Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. WalkerTexas Supreme Court · 1984
- Braden v. DowneyTexas Supreme Court · 1991
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- In Re Cahill, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2008
- Peters v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1992
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Abascal, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1992
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Abascal, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1992
- Tinsley v. DowneyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.