DocketNumber： 98-0222
Citation Numbers： 988 S.W.2d 740, 42 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 65, 1998 Tex. LEXIS 143, 1998 WL 716944
Judges： Hankinson
Filed Date： 10/15/1998
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/19/2024
Supreme Court of Texas.
Joseph A. Garnett, Lansford O. Ireson, Houston, Kay Andrews, Austin, Robert G. Newman, Lisa Ann Shub, San Antonio, Arthur R. Almquist, James L. Moore, Ben L. Reynolds, Chester J. Makowski, Houston, M.W. Meredith, Jr., Corpus Christi, Andrew Schirrmeister, III, Robert Scott, Valerie Ruth Vance, Houston, Renee Forinash McElhaney, San Antonio, Michael M. Gibson, Martin P. Detloff, Houston, Jeffrey D. Roerig, *741 Brownsville, William A. Abernethy, Corpus Christi, Karen Patterson Freeman, Joyce B. Margrace, Houston, Cindy A. Lopez Garcia, Luis Manuel Julia, Edinburg, Robert E. Morse, III, Kelly Dick Brown, Houston, W. Wendell Hall, San Antonio, Vic Fields, Austin, for Relators.
James Rausch, McAllen, Francisco J. Rodriguez, David Neal Calvillo, Hector E. Garcia, McAllen, Keith C. Livesay, Pharr, Eduardo R. Rodriguez, Brownsville, Karen K. Maston, Houston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
In this mandamus proceeding, we are asked to review several issues relating to a November 20, 1997 trial court Order on Motion to Select Parties for Trial. These issues include an order abating all discovery except as to the twenty plaintiffs selected to proceed first to trial; an order allowing plaintiffs' counsel to select the first group of trial plaintiffs; and the denial of relators' motion to compel plaintiffs to further answer an interrogatory regarding causation of plaintiffs' injuries.
We believe that the trial court should have the opportunity to reconsider the abatement order in light of our recent opinion in In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938 (Tex. 1998). If the trial court determines that discovery related to other plaintiffs should not be abated, then the trial court should also reconsider its denial of relators' motion to compel interrogatory answers regarding causation.
Therefore, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to relators again requesting relief from the court of appeals and this Court after the trial court has had an opportunity to reconsider its rulings.
Justice HANKINSON, did not participate in the decision.
In Re Colonial Pipeline Co. , 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 814 ( 1998 )
Harris v. NATIONAL PASSENGER RR CORP. , 79 F. Supp. 2d 673 ( 1999 )
In Re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. , 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1172 ( 2004 )
Flor Reyes v. Brookshire Grocery Company , 578 S.W.3d 588 ( 2019 )
in Re Ford Motor Company ( 2009 )
in Re Ford Motor Company ( 2009 )
Mitchell Parks v. Steak & Ale of Texas, Inc., and Greg Lacy ( 2006 )
Chappell Hill Bank v. Lane Bank Equipment Co. , 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 512 ( 2001 )
Dark Peak Drive v. Del Webb Communities ( 2014 )
In Re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. , 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 99 ( 2001 )
In Re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. , 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 7297 ( 2000 )
Brooks v. PRH INVESTMENTS, INC. , 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 545 ( 2010 )
MidTexas Pipeline Company v. Walter Roy Wright, Jr. and ... ( 2001 )
in Re Commitment of James Eeds ( 2008 )
in Re: Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. ( 2007 )
Karen Haffelfinger v. Blake Adams ( 2013 )
Nancy Diane Brooks v. PRH Investments, Inc. and Whataburger ... ( 2010 )
Nancy Diane Brooks v. PRH Investments, Inc. and Whataburger ... ( 2010 )
in Re Benevis, LLC, Dentistry of Brownsville, P.C., and ... ( 2015 )