Ex Parte International Refining & Manufacturing Co. D/b/a Irmco (in Re Bell Carr, Jr. v. Arvin…

Summary

The court denied mandamus relief challenging the denial of summary judgment because the asserted limitations argument did not fall within the narrow relation-back exception permitting mandamus review, and the trial court had complied with the prior remand mandate. The court granted mandamus in part, holding that the prior appellate disposition did not revive conspiracy claims that had been dismissed and not appealed, but denied relief as to wantonness claims based on non-bodily injuries. The court also held that the applicable limitations period was the six-year period in effect when the wantonness claims were asserted.