How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Dwayne B. Your Own Question
Dwayne B.
Dwayne B., Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 33759
Experience:  Began practicing law in 1992
Type Your Legal Question Here...
Dwayne B. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

In Texas, can a judge require a civil plaintiff to appear in

Customer Question

In Texas, can a judge require a civil plaintiff to appear in person for trial when her deposition testimony can be used instead? (The plaintiff who filed the suit in Texas is not a U.S. citizen, holds no visa, and cannot get into the U.S. for trial.)
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Legal
Expert:  Dwayne B. replied 1 year ago.

Hello and thank you for contacting us. This is Dwayne B. and I’m an expert here and looking forward to helping you today.

Yes, a judge can require anyone to attend a case that they choose to require. It is rare for them to force a plaintiff, or a defendant, to attend but it isn't unheard of. It will be a part of their inherent powers.

They would have to serve the defendant with a subpoena or an order to appear to have it enforceable. I have also seen judges grant a default judgment against a party who has been ordered to appear and did not.

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
I am a board certified civil trial specialist with 23 years of trial experience. I have researched this question for about three hours. I am not looking for another attorney's anecdotal experiences. I specifically asked for the highest level of detail in your answer, and paid extra for this. What is your authority that "a judge can require anyone to attend a case that they choose to require?" The Texas Supreme Court held in LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865 (Tex. 1989) ("There was no default even though husband failed to appear personally for the trial."), that the failure of the party to personally appear at trial was NOT a default and reversed the court of appeals on this point. LeBlanc is still good law. Your answer is conclusory and inconsistent.
Expert:  Dwayne B. replied 1 year ago.

My experience is about the same as yours although the board certification is in a different area. However, the amount that you placed on the question doesn't justify the time and experience required to do the research required to find case law.

The LeBlanc case you cite isn't on point since it addresses a question you didn't ask.

I'll opt out and let someone else do the research if they choose to do so for this amount. With your experience you should recognize the difference between what LeBlanc addresses and the question you asked as well as recognizing the extent to which a judge's inherent powers stretch.

There are other experts online who do a lot of research and should pick up.