A divided Dallas Court of Appeals reversed a trial court ruling on a discovery issue that the court’s majority decided should have never been allowed, but in doing so deviated from its own procedural rule to reach the merits of a writ of mandamus.

The record for the case of In re James Alan Barnes lays out a series of attorney half-measures and debatable judicial analysis, where defendants asked for medical records to which they weren’t entitled, the trial court abused discretion in granting them, the plaintiff relators twice failed to submit a complete record to the appeals court and the appeals court deviated from its own hard rule because, “the outcome might have been otherwise,” the court said.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]