UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN v. VRATIL

No. 96-3220.

96 F.3d 1337 (1996)

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, University of Texas at El Paso, University of Texas Pan American, University of Texas at San Antonio, University of Texas at Arlington, Texas Tech University, Stephen F. Austin University, University of North Texas, Angelo State University, Lamar University — Beaumont, Sam Houston State University, Southwest Texas State University, Texas A & M University, University of Houston, the Board of Trustees of the California State University, which is the State of California acting in a higher education capacity, on behalf of its NCAA Division I Member Campuses: California State University, Northridge; California State University, Fresno; California State University, Fullerton; California State University, Long Beach; California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispos; California State University, Sacramento; San Diego State University; San Jose State University; University of Utah; University of New Mexico; University of Wyoming; and Louisiana State University Board of Supervisors, which is the State of Louisiana Acting in a Higher Education Capacity, on Behalf of its NCAA Division I Campuses: University of New Orleans and the Louisiana State University Baton Rouge Campus, Petitioners, v. The Honorable Kathryn H. VRATIL, District Judge, Respondent, Norman Law; Andrew Greer; Peter Herrmann; Michael Jarvis, Jr.; Charles M. Rieb; William Hall; Doug Schreiber; Lazaro Collozzo; Robin Dreizler; Frank Cruz, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Real Parties in Interest.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

September 17, 1996.


ORDER

Petitioners are National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I state colleges and universities. They seek a writ of prohibition to vacate those portions of the district court's order of sanctions dated May 29, 1996, referring to them as "real parties in interest" and requiring them to respond to plaintiffs' interrogatories. See Law v. NCAA, 167 F.R.D. 464 (D.Kan.1996).

"[A] writ of prohibition is a drastic and extraordinary remedy...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases