AMR Corporation v. Enlow 926 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex. App. -- Fort Worth 1996, orig. proceeding) provides a good example. In that case, the Second Court of Appeals overturned the trial court's decision to allow AMR CEO Robert Crandall's deposition even though the plaintiffs had deposed thirteen lower-level employees. In AMR, the plaintiff argued that AMR CEO Robert Crandall could be deposed in a dramshop negligence case because he had ultimate authority on all of AMR's policies, including alcohol service policies. But in concluding that Crandall could not be deposed, the court of appeals correctly stated that this argument "amounts to nothing more than the simple, obvious recognition that the highest-ranking corporate officer of any corporation has the ultimate responsibility for all corporate decisions . . . ." In AMR, the Second Court of Appeals addressed a somewhat similar argument. In AMR Corp., an American Airlines passenger became intoxicated on his flight and later had a traffic accident with the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued AMR Corp. and American Airlines under the Dramshop Act. The plaintiff sought the apex deposition of Robert Crandall, AMR's president, CEO, and chairman of the board, and American Airlines, Inc.'s CEO and chairman of the board, arguing that he "wished to depose Robert Crandall in order to determine where the authority lies within the organization for making those alcohol service and flight attendant training policy decisions so that Plaintiffs can understand how and why those policy decisions were made and what precisely the policies in place were." Id. at 643. The court of appeals held that "this testimony amounts to nothing more than the simple, obvious recognition that the highest-ranking corporate officer of any corporation has the ultimate responsibility for all corporate decisions and falls far short of the Crown Central standard." Id. at 644. In AMR Corp. v. Enlow, the plaintiffs argued that they could depose AMR CEO Robert Crandall in their dramshop negligence case because Crandall had ultimate authority on all of AMR's policies. The court of appeals prevented the deposition, concluding that ultimate policy authority is insufficient evidence and that parties must articulate facts implicating the apex official's personal knowledge.