In re DePinho
Texas Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to authorize a deposition “to investigate a potential claim or suit.” See Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.1(b). In this original mandamus proceeding, rela-tors Ronald DePinho and Andrew Dennis argue that a court may not order Rule 202 depositions to investigate unripe claims. We agree. Because the trial court in this case did just that, we conditionally grant relief and direct the trial court to vacate its order authorizing discovery.
From 2003 to 2014, William Bornmann was an employee of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, where…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1998
- Waco Independent School District v. GibsonTexas Supreme Court · 2000
- Camarena v. Texas Employment CommissionTexas Supreme Court · 1988
- In Re JordenTexas Supreme Court · 2008
- Robinson v. ParkerTexas Supreme Court · 2011
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- in Re City of DallasTexas Supreme Court · 2016
- Brian Caress v. Michael Fortier, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2019
- Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. DurrellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2018
- Hughes v. GiammancoCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2019
- Angela Davis, as President of NEA-Dallas (A Local Affiliate of Texas State Teachers Association), on Behalf of All Affected Members and Named Individuals v. Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education of the State of Texas And Dallas Independent School District, a Public Body Corporate, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2019
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.