party claiming privilege in Texas

2024“Once the party claiming privilege presents a prima facie case that the documents are privileged, the burden shifts to the party seeking production to prove that an exception to the privilege applies.” Id. at 279–80.

2024“If the trial court issues an erroneous order requiring the production of privileged documents, the party claiming the privilege is left without an adequate appellate remedy.” In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016); see also In re Christus Santa Rosa Healthcare Corp., 617 S.W.3d 586 , 591 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2020, orig. proceeding).

2020Barbouti v. Munden, 866 S.W.2d 288, 295 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied)[, disapproved on other grounds by Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 47 (Tex. 1998).] Here, partial performance was not submitted to the jury, and there was no request that the trial court make a finding on partial performance.

2016“Generally, the party claiming an exception to the statute of frauds must secure a finding to that effect.” Bookout, 165 S.W.3d at 908 (citing Barbouti v. Munden, 866 S.W.2d 288, 295 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied), disapproved of on other grounds by Formosa Plastics Corp. v. Presidio Engineers and Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 46 (Tex.1997)).

2025See Mem’l Hosp.-The Woodlands v. McCown, 927 S.W.2d 1, 12 (Tex. 1996) (“It is well settled that an erroneous order requiring the production of privileged documents leaves the party claiming privilege without an adequate remedy by appeal.”).

2025See Mem’l Hosp.-The Woodlands v. McCown, 927 S.W.2d 1, 12 (Tex. 1996) (“It is well settled that an erroneous order requiring the production of privileged documents leaves the party claiming privilege without an adequate remedy by appeal.”).

2001See Jordan v. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Supreme Judicial District, 701 S.W.2d 644, 648-49 (Tex.1985) (holding that a party claiming a privilege has the burden to establish that privilege and, if the matter for which a privilege is sought has been disclosed to a third party, that no waiver took place). [[Image here]] We hold that if documents are privileged or confidential under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or Texas Rules of Evidence, they are within a “category of information [that] is expressly made confidential under other law” within the meaning of section 552.022 of the Public

2001See Jordan v. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Supreme Judicial District, 701 S.W.2d 644, 648-49 (Tex.1985) (holding that a party claiming a privilege has the burden to establish that privilege and, if the matter for which a privilege is sought has been disclosed to a third party, that no waiver took place). * * * * * We hold that if documents are privileged or confidential under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or Texas Rules of Evidence, they are within a "category of information [that] is expressly made confidential under other law" within the meaning of section 552.022 of the Public Infor

2021“If the trial court issues an erroneous order requiring the production of privileged documents, the party claiming the privilege is left without an adequate appellate remedy.” In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276 , 2 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Living Centers of Tex., Inc., 175 S.W.3d 253, 256 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding).

2021“If the trial court issues an erroneous order requiring the production of privileged documents, the party claiming the privilege is left without an adequate appellate remedy.” In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Living Centers of Tex., Inc., 175 S.W.3d 253, 256 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding).

2010In re K.S., 76 S.W.3d 36, 43 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2002, no pet.).

2010In re K.S., 76 S.W.3d 36, 43 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2002, no pet.).

2025Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 137 (Tex. 2004). 24 Mem’l Hosp.-The Woodlands v. McCown, 927 S.W.2d 1, 12 (Tex. 1996); accord In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (“If the documents at issue are alleged to be privileged, ‘mandamus is appropriate if we conclude that they are privileged and have been improperly ordered disclosed.’” (quoting In re Living Centers of Tex., Inc., 175 S.W.3d 253, 256 (Tex. 2005))). 25 See In re United Healthcare Ins.

2025Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 137 (Tex. 2004). 24 Mem’l Hosp.-The Woodlands v. McCown, 927 S.W.2d 1, 12 (Tex. 1996); accord In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (“If the documents at issue are alleged to be privileged, ‘mandamus is appropriate if we conclude that they are privileged and have been improperly ordered disclosed.’” (quoting In re Living Centers of Tex., Inc., 175 S.W.3d 253, 256 (Tex. 2005))). 25 See In re United Healthcare Ins.

2020Barbouti v. Munden, 866 S.W.2d 288, 295 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied)[, disapproved on other grounds by Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 47 (Tex. 1998).] Here, partial performance was not submitted to the jury, and there was no request that the trial court make a finding on partial performance.

2016“Generally, the party claiming an exception to the statute of frauds must secure a finding to that effect.” Bookout, 165 S.W.3d at 908 (citing Barbouti v. Munden, 866 S.W.2d 288, 295 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied), disapproved of on other grounds by Formosa Plastics Corp. v. Presidio Engineers and Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 46 (Tex.1997)).

2020See Bruce Terminix, 988 S.W.2d at 704 ; Adams v. StaxxRing, Inc., 344 S.W.3d 641, 648 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, pet. denied).

2010See Bruce Terminix, 988 S.W.2d at 704 ; Valero Energy Corp. v. Teco Pipeline Co., 2 S.W.3d 576, 594 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).

2017See City of Pharr v. Pena, 853 S.W.2d 56, 63 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied).

2017See City of Pharr v. Pena, 853 S.W.2d 56, 63 (Tex. 20 600 EXHIBIT A App.—Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied).

2011Pagosa Oil and Gas, L.L.C. v. Marrs and Smith P’ship, 323 S.W.3d 203, 215 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2010, pet. denied).

2011Pagosa Oil and Gas, L.L.C. v. Marrs and Smith P’ship, 323 S.W.3d 203, 215 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2010, pet. denied).

2010Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627, 631 (Tex.1992).

2010Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp ., 837 S.W.2d 627, 631 (Tex. 1992).

2008Id.; State v. Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Dollars & no/100, 136 S.W.3d at 410; Bochas v. State, 951 S.W.2d 64, 71 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1997, pet. denied). 7 .

2008Id .; State v. Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Dollars & No/100 , 136 S.W.3d at 410 ; Bochas v. State , 951 S.W.2d 64, 71 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1997, pet. denied). 7.

2002Rule 193.4 provides that at any hearing on a claim of privilege, the party asserting the privilege "must present any evidence necessary to support the ... privilege." Tex. R.Civ.P. 193.4(a); see also Barnes v. Whittington, 751 S.W.2d 493, 494 (Tex.1988) (orig.proceeding) ("The party claiming the privilege bears the burden of producing evidence to support such an exception by showing that the documents in question qualify for the privilege as a matter of law.").

2002Rule 193.4 provides that at any hearing on a claim of privilege, the party asserting the privilege “must present any evidence necessary to support the ... privilege.” Tex. R.Civ.P. 193.4(a); see also Barnes v. Whittington, 751 S.W.2d 493, 494 (Tex.1988) (orig.proceeding) (“The party claiming the privilege bears the burden of producing evidence to support such an exception by showing that the documents in question qualify for the privilege as a matter of law.”).

2018Universal Underwriters, 345 S.W.3d at 411 ; see also In re State Farm Lloyds, Inc., 170 S.W.3d 629, 634 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, orig. proceeding).

2018Universal Underwriters , 345 S.W.3d at 411 ; see also In re State Farm Lloyds, Inc. , 170 S.W.3d 629 , 634 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2005, orig. proceeding).

2013Mann v. NCNB Tex. Nat’l Bank , 854 S.W.2d 664, 668 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, no writ); see Tex. R.

2013Mann v. NCNB Tex. Nat’l Bank, 854 S.W.2d 664, 668 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, no writ); see Tex. R.

2008See id.

2008See id.

2006The party claiming the exception to the privilege bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case by proving “a violation sufficiently serious to defeat the privilege.” Freeman v. Bianchi, 820 S.W.2d 853, 861 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, orig. proceeding).

1992The party claiming the exception to the privilege bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case by proving “a violation sufficiently serious to defeat the privilege.” Freeman v. Bianchi, 820 S.W.2d at 861 .

2004See id.

2004See id.

2024“Mandamus is appropriate for constitutional protections like the privilege against self-incrimination that an appeal could not adequately protect.” In re Speer, 965 S.W.2d 41, 45 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, orig. proceeding) (citing Tilton v. Marshall, 925 S.W.2d 672, 682 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding)).

2018"Mandamus is appropriate for constitutional protections like the privilege against self-incrimination that an appeal could not adequately protect." In re Speer , 965 S.W.2d 41 , 45 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1998, orig. proceeding) (citing Tilton v. Marshall , 925 S.W.2d 672 , 682 (Tex. 1996) ).

2024“Mandamus is appropriate for constitutional protections like the privilege against self-incrimination that an appeal could not adequately protect.” In re Speer, 965 S.W.2d 41, 45 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, orig. proceeding) (citing Tilton v. Marshall, 925 S.W.2d 672, 682 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding)).

2018"Mandamus is appropriate for constitutional protections like the privilege against self-incrimination that an appeal could not adequately protect." In re Speer , 965 S.W.2d 41 , 45 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1998, orig. proceeding) (citing Tilton v. Marshall , 925 S.W.2d 672 , 682 (Tex. 1996) ).

2024“If the trial court issues an erroneous order requiring the production of privileged documents, the party claiming the privilege is left without an adequate appellate remedy.” Id.

1996Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 843 (Tex.1992).