In re Van Waters & Rogers Inc.
Cases that cite this one
32 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- in Re Benevis, LLC, Dentistry of Brownsville, P.C., and Kool Smiles, P.C. (Tex. App. 2015)
- In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. (Tex. 2004)
- In re Rogelio Lopez Perez v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- In re Jayro Jesus Lara Belmontes v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- In re Saul Antoni Lozano Aguilar v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- In re Luis Chavez Orozco v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- In re Adan Michel Reyes Alvarado v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- Ex Parte Luis Antonio Bautista Estrada v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- Ex Parte Jose Santos Ochoa Najera v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- Ex Parte Juan Jose Santiago Villalobos v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- Ex Parte Juan Jose Santiago Villalobos v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- Ex Parte Jose Francisco Castillo-Ramos v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- Ex Parte Raul Eduardo Gutierrez Ruiz v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- Ex Parte Ramon Oniel Saravia Bonilla v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- In re Elmer Alexander Rodriguez Leiva v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- In re Dagoberto Hernandez-Villareal v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- Ex Parte Sergio Herrera Campos v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- Ex Parte Fausto Dominguez-Sanchez v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- Ex Parte Candido Ezequiel Martinez-Jimenez v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- Ex Parte Angel Alberto Ruiz Vallesteros v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- Ex Parte: Juan Cortes-Fernandez v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- Ex Parte: Joan Sebastian Pena-Cortes v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- Ex Parte: Hector Recendis-Martinez v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- Ex Parte: German De Jesus Rodriguez Delgado v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
- Ex Parte: Eduardo Frias-Gutierrez v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.