# Simpson v. Canales

> Texas Supreme Court · April 3, 1991 · 34 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 487

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9646263

## Case

- **Full name:** Nell SIMPSON, Et Al., Relators, v. Hon. Adolph CANALES, Judge of the 298th District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Respondent
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 3, 1991
- **Citations:** 34 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 487; 806 S.W.2d 802; 1991 Tex. LEXIS 43; 1991 WL 45131
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mauzy
- **Judges:** Hecht, Mauzy
- **Cited by:** 64 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/9646263

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that absent a showing that the future conduct of discovery will justify supervision by a master rather than the court, Athe parties have simply been ordered to pay by the hour for resolution of the same kinds of issues by a master that litigants in other cases can o…
- holding that a toxic-tort case involving one plaintiff, eighteen defendants, and allegations that chemicals in the defendants= products caused lung cancer was not an exceptional case warranting appointment of a master
- holding that to require parties to reserve for appeal their complaint regarding the erroneous appointment of a master in chancery would be to deny any effective relief from the trial court=s order
- holding that toxic tort case involving many defendants and several discovery motions was undoubtedly more complicated than many others, but not so complicated as to be exceptional
- explaining the historical role of masters and outlining the requirements for appointing a master in Texas

## Opinion text

MAUZY, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the majority’s result. Under the facts of this case, the trial court’s appointment of a special master was a clear abuse of discretion. See La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 , 77 S.Ct. 309 , 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957).
I object, however, to the majority’s unnecessary discourse on the historical role of special masters. This Court’s role is not to author legal treatises. Cf. Reagan v. Vaughn, 804 S.W.2d 463 (Tex.1991) (Hecht, J., dissenting on motion for rehearing). Nor is it to issue advisory opinions. Cf. Edgewood v. Kirby, 804 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. 1991) (on motion for rehearing). The people of this state elect their judges to decide the cases that come before the courts. As surely as that role is served by sound reasoning, so is it disserved by needless exercises in pedantry.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9646263. Public record. Not legal advice.