Legal Opinion

In Re Nitla S.A. De C.V.

Texas Supreme Court

Decided April 11, 2002No. 01-0512PublishedCited by 209 opinions

1Per curiam

The issue here is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to disqualify Nitla’s counsel, who had reviewed privileged documents that thé trial court ordered the opposing party to produce. The court of appeals issued mandamus, ordering the trial court to disqualify Nitla’s counsel. In re Bank of Am., N.A., 45 S.W.3d 238, 245 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001)'. However, in so doing, the court of appeals misapplied the law and thus abused its discretion. Accordingly, we granted Nitla’s motion for rehearing, and we now conditionally grant a writ of mandamus and direct the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Walker v. PackerTexas Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Spears v. Fourth Court of AppealsTexas Supreme Court · 1990
  4. In Re MeadorTexas Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Ayres v. CanalesTexas Supreme Court · 1990

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

3Cited by209 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Appeals at TexarkanaCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2007
  2. In Re Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.Texas Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Howell v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2004
  4. In Re SandersTexas Supreme Court · 2004
  5. City of Dallas v. Redbird Development Corp., Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2004

204 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