Legal Opinion

Laird v. King

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)

Decided December 2, 1993No. 09-93-200 CVPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BROOKSHIRE, Justice.

Writ of mandamus proceeding.

A hearing was conducted on the Motion of E-Z Mart Stores, Inc., (E-Z) for the reduction of the supersedeas bond relative to the judgment entered below in this litigation. The real party in interest took the position that the motion to reduce was brought basically under Rule 47(b), section 1, of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The record reflects that counsel for the real party in interest stated:

What we’re asking the Court to do is to reduce the supersedeas bond or at the Court’s discretion to eliminate the superse-deas bond…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1987
  2. Udolf v. Plan & Zoning Commission of West HartfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1988

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Isern v. Ninth Court of AppealsTexas Supreme Court · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API