Legal Opinion · Dissent

Nasr v. Rubio

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)

Decided May 31, 2001No. 09-00-033 CV, 09-00-034 CVPublished

1DissentBurgess, Justice

I vigorously, yet respectfully, dissent.

*29Mandamus v. Interlocutory Appeal

The majority holds this case invokes the Federal Arbitration Act and thus mandamus will lie in this case, yet acknowledges the contractual arbitration clause does not specifically invoke either the Texas Arbitration Act or the Federal Arbitration Act nor did the trial judge rule as to which act applied. Incredibly they “have no problem finding” this was a “transaction involving commerce” because Walmart is among the subcontractors listed in response to discovery requests.4 Mr. Nasr never raised this issue before the trial…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Prudential Securities Inc. v. MarshallTexas Supreme Court · 1995
  2. EZ Pawn Corp. v. ManciasTexas Supreme Court · 1996
  3. In Re Bruce Terminix Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Banda v. Garcia Ex Rel. GarciaTexas Supreme Court · 1997
  5. San Jacinto River Authority v. DukeTexas Supreme Court · 1990

5 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