Case Citator › Lunsford v. Morris

Lunsford v. Morris

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
746 S.W.2d 471
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
33 of 33
Citing cases (total)
33
Treatment dates
1992–2021
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Lunsford v. Morris has been overruled in part: all 33 flagged citations have been read, and the 2 confirmed treatments are listed below. The Texas Supreme Court required a showing that ordinary appeal is inadequate before mandamus may correct a discovery order, displacing Lunsford's use of mandamus without that inquiry.
More on how this was screened

A later Texas statute also replaced Lunsford's rule allowing net worth discovery without a preliminary showing. Lunsford's holding that net worth is relevant to exemplary damages remains in use.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

33 later cases cite Lunsford v. Morris; 33 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Lunsford v. Morris?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Texas Supreme Court required proof that ordinary appeal is inadequate before granting mandamus for a discovery order, superseding Lunsford's use of mandamus without that inquiry.

    Walker v. Packer · Supreme Court of Texas · filed

    Perhaps because of this, we have on several occasions since Jampole used mandamus to correct discovery errors without considering whether the relator had an adequate appellate remedy. See Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.1989); Barnes v. Whittington, 751 S.W.2d 493 (Tex.1988); Lunsford v. Morris, 746 S.W.2d 471 (Tex.1988); ... We thus hold that a party seeking review of a discovery order by mandamus must demonstrate that the remedy offered by an ordinary appeal is inadequate. We disapprove of Barker, Allen, and any other authorities to the extent they might be read as abolishing or relaxing this rule.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Superseded by statute

  • The Texas Court of Appeals applied a statute requiring a substantial likelihood of success on an exemplary damages claim before net worth discovery, replacing Lunsford's rule that required no preliminary showing.

    In re Bella Corp. · Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District · filed

    “[I]n cases in which punitive or exemplary damages may be awarded, parties may discover and offer evidence of a defendant’s net worth.” Lunsford v. Morris, 746 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex. 1988), disapproved of on other grounds by Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 842. ... For discovery purposes, however, on a party’s motion and after notice and a hearing, a trial court may authorize discovery of a defendant’s net worth if the court finds in a written order that the claimant demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for exemplary damages. Id. § 41.0115(a) (West Supp. 2020).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Lunsford v. Morris and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace