Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Masonite Corp.

Texas Supreme Court

Decided August 26, 1999No. 97-0884Published

1Dissent

Justice BAKER,

joined by Chief Justice PHILLIPS, Justice O’NEILL, and Justice GONZALES, dissenting.

Today the Court holds that the trial court abused its discretion and that the circumstances in this case are so exeep-tional that Masonite does not have an adequate appellate remedy. I agree with the Court that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the transfer orders on its own motion. But I cannot agree that this case involves exceptional circumstances rendering Masonite’s appellate remedy inadequate and warranting mandamus relief. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

I. ADEQUATE…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. CSR LTD. v. LinkTexas Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Cleveland v. WardTexas Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. WittigTexas Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Holloway v. Fifth Court of AppealsTexas Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Moody v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1992

20 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