Legal Opinion

Morris v. Hoerster

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 31, 1963No. A-9664PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

We agree with the result reached by the Court of Civil Appeals. 368 S.W.2d 639. However, we do not agree with the Court of Civil Appeals that petitioner’s recourse in denial of a bill of discovery brought in conjunction with pending litigation, though brought as an independent action, is only by way of mandamus in the Supreme Court. The reasoning in Crane v. Tunks, 160 Tex. 182, 328 S.W.2d 434, does not necessarily apply where a bill of discovery has been denied.

The applications for writ of error are refused, n. r. e. Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Crane v. TunksTexas Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Morris v. HoersterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1963

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Pelt v. State Board of InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1991
  2. Morris v. SmileyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1964
  3. Morris v. HoersterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1964
  4. Hancock v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1990
  5. Dickens v. Court of Appeals for the Second Supreme Judicial District of TexasCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1987

2 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