In Re Perritt

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where the judge refused to disqualify himself, relator who sought judge’s disqualification was not required to join in the other party’s objection because any additional objection would have been futile
• holding that relators were not required to raise the same objection that their co-defendants had already made, and the trial court had already overruled, to be entitled to mandamus relief
• holding that relators were not required to raise the same objection that their co-defendants had already made, and the trial court had already overruled, to be entitled to mandamus relief
• holding that where the judge refused to disqualify himself, relator who sought judge’s disqualification was not required to join in the other party’s objection because any additional objection would have been futile
• finding that the futility exception applied and noting that “had [relators] filed their own formal objection to Judge Stephens, it would have added nothing for the court’s consideration,” given the objection mirrored another party’s filed objection
• noting that it has relaxed predicate-request-and-refusal requirement when “the circumstances confirmed ‘that the request would have been futile and the refusal little more than a formality’” (quoting Terrazas v. Ramirez, 829 S.W.2d 712, 723 (Tex. 1991)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).