Legal Opinion

In re Meeker

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided June 29, 2016No. 02-16-00103-CVPublished

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

  1. In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaTexas Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Lopez v. Muñoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P.Texas Supreme Court · 2000
  3. In Re JordenTexas Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Carle v. CarleTexas Supreme Court · 1950
  5. Trevino v. TurcotteTexas Supreme Court · 1978

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API