In re RSR Corp.

3 Citing cases

  1. In re Inppamet Ltd.

    566 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    SeeIn re RSR Corp. , 475 S.W.3d 775 (Tex. 2015) (orig. proceeding); In re RSR Corp. , 405 S.W.3d 265 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, orig. proceeding). At the heart of the dispute was which of two disqualification standards should apply to the facts of the case, that set out in In re American Home Products Corp. , 985 S.W.2d 68 (Tex. 1998) (orig.

  2. In re RSR Corp.

    59 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 116 (Tex. 2015)   Cited 14 times
    Holding trial court abused discretion because order on attorney disqualification reflected it did not consider relevant factors

    Beyond the spreadsheets for calculating Inppamet's payments to RSR and information regarding the audit, the trial court's order did not identify specific documents Bickel & Brewer reviewed. The court of appeals subsequently denied RSR's petition for mandamus relief. 405 S.W.3d 265, 268 (Tex.App.–Dallas 2013). II.

  3. Porter v. A-1 Parts

    No. 05-17-01468-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 14, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    P. 299a ("Findings of fact shall not be recited in a judgment."); In re RSR Corp., 405 S.W.3d 265, 271 n.3 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, orig. proceeding); Casino Magic Corp. v. King, 43 S.W.3d 14, 19 n.6 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied). Porter pleaded causes of action for common law fraud and violations of the DTPA.