in Re Starr County Produce Company, Relator

Court of Appeals of Texas

in Re Starr County Produce Company, Relator

DecidedFebruary 10, 1999

Docket04-98-01059-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in Re Starr County Produce Company, Relator (in Re Starr County Produce Company, Relator) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

in Re Starr County Produce Company, Relator, (Tex. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

CONCURRING OPINION

No. 04-98-01059-CV

IN RE STARR PRODUCE COMPANY

Original Mandamus Proceeding From the From the 381st Judicial District Court of Starr County, Texas Trial Court No. DC-97-1 Honorable John A. Pope, III, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Concurring opinion by: Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 10, 1999

First, I must confess that I am predisposed to be against this legislative perk, for reasons completely outside this record. In Bexar County during the 1970s legislative continuances were so common they enjoyed a set price. I successfully campaigned (some would say demagogued) against their overuse, contending they were usually unnecessary and often contrary to justice. Having examined many, I have yet to find a necessary request for a legislative continuance. Yet the Legislature, evidently believing their lawyer/members will confront troublesome jurists, provides this mandatory benefit of office and we are left with the due process exception. Since the stated objective in this record are that the opposing "attorney will have spent countless hours and money preparing for this trial and wherein Mr. Bazan has asked to be excused from work . . ." we do not have a due process situation. Though I am most reluctant to interfere with this trial court's evident diligence in managing his docket, on this uncompelling record I must concur.

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Publish

Return to
Fourth Court of Appeals

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

CONCURRING OPINION

No. 04-98-01059-CV

IN RE STARR PRODUCE COMPANY

Original Mandamus Proceeding From the From the 381st Judicial District Court of Starr County, Texas Trial Court No. DC-97-1 Honorable John A. Pope, III, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Concurring opinion by: Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 10, 1999

First, I must confess that I am predisposed to be against this legislative perk, for reasons completely outside this record. In Bexar County during the 1970s legislative continuances were so common they enjoyed a set price. I successfully campaigned (some would say demagogued) against their overuse, contending they were usually unnecessary and often contrary to justice. Having examined many, I have yet to find a necessary request for a legislative continuance. Yet the Legislature, evidently believing their lawyer/members will confront troublesome jurists, provides this mandatory benefit of office and we are left with the due process exception. Since the stated objective in this record are that the opposing "attorney will have spent countless hours and money preparing for this trial and wherein Mr. Bazan has asked to be excused from work . . ." we do not have a due process situation. Though I am most reluctant to interfere with this trial court's evident diligence in managing his docket, on this uncompelling record I must concur.

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Publish

Return to
Fourth Court of Appeals

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in Re Starr County Produce Company, Relator, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-starr-county-produce-company-relator-texapp-1999.