Legal Opinion

Rio Hondo Implement Co. v. Euresti

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District

Decided July 13, 1995No. 13-95-191-CVPublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA, Jr., Justice.

This mandamus action concerns the propriety of the trial court’s order denying Rio Hondo Implement Company’s motion to disqualify plaintiffs counsel, Hodge & James. Rio Hondo sought to disqualify plaintiffs counsel on two bases: 1) the joint defense counsel privilege and 2) that James would be a material witness in the trial. The plaintiffs and real parties in interest, George and Frances Nixon d/b/a/ Nixon Farms, originally sued Rio Hondo and others for damages resulting from Rio Hondo’s allegedly improper repair of their farm equipment. The Nix-ons…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Walker v. PackerTexas Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Spears v. Fourth Court of AppealsTexas Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Turner v. TurnerTexas Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Barnes v. WhittingtonTexas Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Wilson P. Abraham Construction Corporation v. Armco Steel Corporation, the Ceco Corporation, and Laclede Steel CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. In Re American Home Products Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1998
  2. City of Kalamazoo v. Michigan Disposal Service Corp.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2000
  3. in Re Texas Windstorm Insurance Association, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2013
  4. In Re Skiles, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2003
  5. GTE North, Inc. v. Apache Products Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1996

12 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