Morris v. Hoerster

Texas Supreme Court

Morris v. Hoerster

370 S.W.2d 451

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 31, 1963

DocketA-9664, A-9665

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 370 S.W.2d 451 (Morris v. Hoerster) 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.

Bluebook

Morris v. Hoerster, 370 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER 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.

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

PER 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 S.W.2d 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-hoerster-tex-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack