In Re Does

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an order for pre-suit deposition did not comply with Rule 202.4(a) by listing the required finding
• concluding that petitioner’s “sketchy” allegations mostly concerning a third party “made no effort to present the trial court with a basis for the [Rule 202] findings”
• concluding that petitioner’s “sketchy” allegations mostly concerning a third party “made no effort to present the trial court with a basis for the [Rule 202] findings”
• concluding that petitioner’s “sketchy” allegations mostly concerning a third party “made no effort to present the trial court with a basis for the [Rule 202] findings”
• holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to make the required findings under Rule 202 before ordering an Internet service provider to disclose the identity of an anticipated defendant
• holding that mandamus relief from an order granting a rule 202 petition was appropriate when the allegations in the petition were “sketchy” and concerned possible causes of action by a party other than the petitioner

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).