Collins v. Collins

923 S.W.2d 569, 1996 WL 54576
Texas Supreme Court·Decided April 4, 1996·No. 95-0803·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The court of appeals holds, in part, that the trial court erred in allowing two witnesses to testify to the market value of a corporation, of which they were the principal managers and sole stockholders, because they did not supplement their deposition testimony in which each stated that he did not plan to testify at trial about the value of the corporation. 904 S.W.2d 792, 799-802. Unlike the dissenting justices in the court of appeals, we do not read the court of appeals’ opinion so broadly as to require supplementation of a fact witness’ deposition testimony generally, or in any situation other than when a witness renders an expert opinion. See id. at 806-08 (Hedges, J., dissenting). With this understanding, we deny the applications for writ of error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Collins v. Collins, 923 S.W.2d 569, 1996 WL 54576 (Tex. 1996).

923 S.W.2d 569 (Collins v. Collins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Collins v. Collins
904 S.W.2d 792 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)