Collins v. Collins
This text of 923 S.W.2d 569 (Collins v. Collins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
923 S.W.2d 569, 1996 WL 54576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-collins-tex-1996.