In re Meeker
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Dissent 1
WALKER, J.,
filed a dissenting opinion.
2Dissent · WalkerSue Walker, Justice
I.INTRODUCTION
Because Real Party in Interest Alan Meeker (Alan) lacks standing to assert the “potential claim or suit” he seeks to investigate by virtue of his “Verified Rule 202 Petition for Deposition and Subpoena Duces Tecum to Investigate Potential Claims,” I would hold that Respondent the Honorable Joe Loving abused his discretion by granting Alan relief under the rule 202 petition. Consequently, I would grant mandamus relief to Relators Wade Meeker; James Meeker; Barney Holland, as independent executor of the estate of Lawrence H. Meeker; and…
3Cases cited18 opinions
- In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaTexas Supreme Court · 2004
- Lopez v. Muñoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P.Texas Supreme Court · 2000
- In Re JordenTexas Supreme Court · 2008
- Carle v. CarleTexas Supreme Court · 1950
- Trevino v. TurcotteTexas Supreme Court · 1978
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.