Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Hicks

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)

Decided May 22, 2008No. 14-07-00590-CVPublished

1DissentKem Thompson Frost, Justice

The relators have not shown that the trial court clearly abused its discretion by compelling the discovery sought. Under applicable precedent, this court should deny the petition for writ of mandamus in its entirety.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF

In original mandamus proceedings in courts of appeals, relators have the “heavy” burden of presenting a record and petition that show they are entitled to mandamus relief to correct a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court.1 The inquiry mandated by precedent is whether the relators (Hicks and Fazio) have established their entitlement to the extraordinary…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Walker v. PackerTexas Supreme Court · 1992
  2. In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaTexas Supreme Court · 2004
  3. In Re Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.Texas Supreme Court · 2005
  4. G. A. Stowers Furniture Co. v. American Indemnity Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. WittigTexas Supreme Court · 1994

10 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