# In Re Allied Chemical Corp.

> Texas Supreme Court · June 15, 2007 · 50 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 888

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9512957

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Et Al., Relator
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 15, 2007
- **Citations:** 50 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 888; 227 S.W.3d 652; 2007 Tex. LEXIS 563; 2007 WL 1713378
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wainwright
- **Judges:** Brister, Hecht, Medina, Green, Willett, Jefferson, O'Neill, Wainwright, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 73 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9512957

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that parties and the attorneys who sign discovery responses on their behalf certify that a response is complete “based on all information reasonably available to the responding party or its attorney at the time the response is made”
- concluding that subsequent trial court order did not moot mandamus proceeding because discovery issue was “capable of repetition in a manner that evades review”
- observing that trial courts have broad, although not unlimited, discretion in scheduling discovery and that mandamus has been granted when the denial of discovery “goes to the heart of a party’s case”
- stating that experts ″must also exclude other causes with reasonable certainty″

## Opinion text

Justice WAINWRIGHT,
dissenting.
The several opinions in this case cogently set forth different positions. The truth is we all agree that improper tactical gamesmanship that skews accurate outcomes in the search for justice in the courts should be halted. In extraordinary cases in which the trial court has abused its discretion and there is no adequate remedy by appeal, it should be halted by mandamus. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex.2004). The question in this case is whether rela-tors have shown that the Court should grant relief using the vehicle of mandamus. Relators decry being put to trial with no evidence of causation to support the claims of hundreds of plaintiffs against the dozens of defendants. However, rela-tors in this case did not tee up their no-evidence arguments in the trial court by filing either 1) a motion for summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c) or 166a(i) or 2) a motion under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215.1 to compel the claimants to provide interrogatory answers that comply with Able Supply Company v. Moye, 898 S.W.2d 766, 771 (Tex.1995). If they had, and the trial court then abused its discretion by making an erroneous legal ruling, refusing to set the motion for a hearing or refusing to timely rule, I would join the Court’s opinion in this type of mass tort case. None of these things occurred. In fact, there is not even an existing trial court order about which the relators complain.
If we do not require litigants to avail themselves of the existing avenues for relief before seeking unique and extraordinary mandamus remedies, then mandamus relief will cease being extraordinary in the manner our precedents prescribe. The rules of procedure provide methods to address the complaints in this case. I depart from the Court in this case over the propriety of granting relief by mandamus.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9512957. Public record. Not legal advice.