Legal Opinion
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Floyd
Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
Decided June 6, 1991No. 09-91-096 CVPublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
On April 16, 1991, Mobil Oil Corp. (“Mobil”) filed a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus. On April 30, 1991, the real party in interest filed a response at the request of the Court.
This is a negligence suit. 1 James Brind-za sustained head injuries from a fall on Mobil’s premises. After this suit was filed he was declared non compos mentis in an Orange County guardianship proceeding and his wife, Tracie, was appointed permanent guardian of his person and estate. Relator did not participate in the guardianship proceeding.
Mobil seeks a writ of mandamus “reversing the…
3Cases cited10 opinions
- Jampole v. TouchyTexas Supreme Court · 1984
- Saucier v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1950
- Handel v. Long TrustsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1988
- Hefley v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1972
- Elliott v. ElliottCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1948
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by17 opinions
- Barker v. Roelke, Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)2003
- Kokes v. Angelina College, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2004
- In the Interest of R.M.T., a Child, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2011
- In Re Rmt, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2011
- In the Interest of R.M.T., a Child, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2011
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.