Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Walker
Tex.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026In Re B.W.A. and A.R-A. v. the State of Texas Tex. App.-Austin
- 2026In Re Thomas Blane Peek v. the State of Texas Tex. App.-Texarkana
- 2025In Re Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2025In Re Storable, Inc.; RedNova Labs, Inc. (d/B/A storEDGE); SitelinkSoftware, LLC; Easy Storage Solutions, LLC; Bader Co.; And Property First Group, LP v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2025In Re ETC Filed Services, LLC v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2018in Re Dan Dipprey, Curtis Priddy, Ken Hill, and Ken Hill Investment Group, Inc. Tex. App.
- 2016in Re: Anthony R. Sanders Tex. App.
- 2015in Re George Green and Garlan Green Tex. App.
- 2015Vivek Goswami, M.D. and Austin Heart, PLLC v. Nancy Jo Rodriguez Tex. App.
- 2015City of Plainview Texas, William Mull, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Plainview Police Department, and Ken Coughlin, Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Plainview Police Department v. Korey Ferguson Tex. Crim. App.
Cites 5 cases
- Abor v. Black
- Proffer v. Yates
- Jackson v. S.P. Leasing Corp.
- Pope v. Ferguson
- Iley v. Hughes
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC., et al., Relators, v. The Honorable Jeff WALKER, Judge, 96th District Court, Tarrant County, Respondent.
Attorneys
- David Broiles, George Galerstein, William F. Peters, Jr., Sterling W. Steves, Fort Worth, for relators.
- Michael B. Sydow, Houston, Jose Batista Dos Santos, Fort Worth, Kelli M. McDonald, Houston, for respondent.
Relators are defendants in a wrongful death action brought by the real parties in interest as beneficiaries of persons killed in a helicopter crash about twenty miles off the coast of Brazil. Decedents, who were not citizens or residents of the United States, were being transported to work on offshore oil platforms in waters over the continental shelf of Brazil. Relators contend that undisputed facts establish that the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688(b) (1982), precludes plaintiffs from asserting their claims in any United States court. Thus, relators contend, the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims. Similar contentions are before the Court in Jackson v. S.P. Leasing Corp., No. C-8819 (argued Dec. 6, 1989), writ of error granted from 774 S.W.2d 673 (Tex.App.— Texarkana 1989). We need not reach these issues in the present case, however, and express no opinion on their ultimate merit. We conclude, instead, that relators are not entitled to mandamus relief because they have an adequate remedy by appeal.
We have consistently held that we lack jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to supervise or correct incidental rulings of a trial judge when there is an adequate remedy by appeal. “Such incidental rulings include ... pleas to the jurisdiction, ... [even if] it might logically be argued that the petitioner for the writ was entitled, as a matter of law, to the action sought to be compelled.” Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 566-567 (Tex.1985), quoting Pope v. Ferguson, 445 S.W.2d 950, 954 (Tex.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 997, 90 S.Ct. 1138, 25 L.Ed.2d 405 (1970). General ly, the cost and delay of pursuing an appeal will not, in themselves, render appeal an inadequate alternative to mandamus review. See Iley v. Hughes, 158 Tex. 362, 311 S.W.2d 648, 652 (1958); but cf. Proffer v. Yates, 734 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1987) (man damus appropriate to direct transfer of child support case because justice demands speedy resolution of such cases). Relators’ application does not fall within any recognized exception to these general rules. Therefore, leave to file relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is denied.