Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the language of section 15.003 makes the burden of proving proper joinder “very high”
• holding that the availability of interlocutory necessarily denied Thomas’s challenge to the appeal [* ] from a section 15.003(a
• holding that proving a need to pool resources is insufficient to establish essential need
• holding that proving a need to pool resources is insufficient to establish essential need
• holding that order transferring venue was subject to interlocutory appeal when “predicated on [the court’s] decision about the propriety of the plaintiffs’ joinder,” where joinder was issue on which interlocutory appeal could be taken
• holding section 15.003(c) does not allow interlocutory appeal if trial court rules venue is proper as to a joining plaintiff under section 15.002

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).