Legal Opinion
Decker v. Lindsay
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Decided January 15, 1992No. 01-91-01299-CVPublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SAM H. BASS, Justice.
We are faced with two questions today: (1) Can a party be compelled to participate in an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure despite its objections?, and (2) Have relators established their right to mandamus relief?
John and Mary Decker, relators, seek mandamus relief against respondent, Judge Tony Lindsay, who signed an order on October 18, 1991 referring their suit against Jordan Mintz, 1 the real party in interest, to mediation under Tex.Civ.PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. § 154.021(a) (Vernon Supp.1992).
Judge Lindsay’s mediation order was made on her own…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Johnson v. Fourth Court of AppealsTexas Supreme Court · 1985
- G. A. Stowers Furniture Co. v. American Indemnity Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1929
- GENERAL LAND OFFICE OF THE STATE OF TEX. v. Oxy USA, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1990
- Southern Canal Co. v. State Board of Water EngineersTexas Supreme Court · 1958
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Avary v. Bank of America, N.A., Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2002
- In Re Acceptance Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 2000
- In Re Sheppard, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2006
- Team Design v. GottliebCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2002
- Smith v. SmithDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1994
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.