non-evidentiary hearing in Texas

2026Cf. Vaughn v. Drennon, 324 S.W.3d 560, 561 (Tex. 2010) (acknowledging Aldridge presumption that any judgment following conventional trial on merits is presumed to be final for purposes of appeal); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 206 (Tex. 2001) (noting that language typically indicating finality involves statements such as “this judgment finally disposes of all claims and all parties and is appealable”).

2026Cf. Vaughn v. Drennon, 324 S.W.3d 560, 561 (Tex. 2010) (acknowledging Aldridge presumption that any judgment following conventional trial on merits is presumed to be final for purposes of appeal); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 206 (Tex. 2001) (noting that language typically indicating finality involves statements such as “this judgment finally disposes of all claims and all parties and is appealable”).

2021When determining whether to grant a scire facias application to revive a dormant judgment, the trial court considers: (1) the date of the judgment; (2) the date of the motion; and (3) any evidence showing that the time to bring the scire facias proceeding was extended by the issuance of a writ three extended periods in the six years it took plaintiffs to serve defendant” with their personal- injury lawsuit); Hull v. Vidaurri, No. 03-08-00204-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 424 , at *15, *24- 25 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 22, 2010, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (noting that plaintiff made no attempt to serve de

2021When determining whether to grant a scire facias application to revive a dormant judgment, the trial court considers: (1) the date of the judgment; (2) the date of the motion; and (3) any evidence showing that the time to bring the scire facias proceeding was extended by the issuance of a writ three extended periods in the six years it took plaintiffs to serve defendant” with their personal- injury lawsuit); Hull v. Vidaurri, No. 03-08-00204-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 424 , at *15, *24- 25 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 22, 2010, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (noting that plaintiff made no attempt to serve de

2021A scire facias proceeding is usually “a non-evidentiary hearing for which there is no need for findings of fact and conclusions of law.” McShane v. McShane, 556 S.W.3d 436, 441 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) (noting that if parties dispute date that judgment was rendered, trial court may consider evidence relevant to date of rendition).

2021When determining whether to grant a scire facias application to revive a dormant judgment, the trial court considers: (1) the date of the judgment; (2) the date of the motion; and (3) any evidence showing that the time to bring the scire facias proceeding was extended by the issuance of a writ three extended periods in the six years it took plaintiffs to serve defendant” with their personal- injury lawsuit); Hull v. Vidaurri, No. 03-08-00204-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 424 , at *15, *24- 25 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 22, 2010, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (noting that plaintiff made no attempt to serve de

2018After a non-evidentiary hearing on the habeas, the same trial court found, based on its recollection of the events, caselaw, and arguments of counsel, that there was not “any intentional misconduct on the State’s part as far as the witness in the case, Ms. Elva Villarreal, they didn’t have any intent to call her.” Stewart perfected this appeal of the trial court’s order denying habeas corpus relief. -3- 04-17-00249-CR ANALYSIS Habeas Corpus Standard of Review “An applicant seeking habeas corpus relief must prove his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.” Ex parte Cruz, 350 S.W.3d 166, 167

2018See Grant Prideco, Inc., 463 S.W.3d at 162 n.10; Cleveland, 397 S.W.3d at 693 ; In re D.A.P., 267 S.W.3d at 488 ; see also Associated Emp’rs Lloyds, 230 S.W.2d at 839 .

2018Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the printed version of that profile as viewed by me on that day.” (Emphasis omitted.) After a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied ODIN’s new-trial motion. 4 See In re G.P., No. 01-16-00346-CV, 2016 WL 6216192 , at *23 n.67 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 25, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“‘Facebook’ is a ‘social networking website[]’ that ‘allow[s] users to establish an online account, create a profile, and then invite others to access that profile as a friend’” (alteration in original) (quoting Campbell v. State, 382 S.W.3d 545, 550 (Tex.

2018See Grant Prideco, Inc., 463 S.W.3d at 162 n.10; Cleveland, 397 S.W.3d at 693 ; In re D.A.P., 267 S.W.3d at 488 ; see also Associated Emp’rs Lloyds, 230 S.W.2d at 839 .

2018Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the printed version of that profile as viewed by me on that day.” (Emphasis omitted.) After a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied ODIN’s new-trial motion. 4 See In re G.P., No. 01-16-00346-CV, 2016 WL 6216192 , at *23 n.67 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 25, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“‘Facebook’ is a ‘social networking website[]’ that ‘allow[s] users to establish an online account, create a profile, and then invite others to access that profile as a friend’” (alteration in original) (quoting Campbell v. State, 382 S.W.3d 545, 550 (Tex.

2015Dist., 51 S.W.3d 676, 680 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (“At a non-evidentiary hearing, the board then considers the examiner’s recommendation.” (citing Tex. Educ.

2014See id. –2– judgment is signed, the time for appealing begins on the date the party received notice or learned of the judgment, provided that the party learned of the judgment no later than ninety days after the judgment was signed.

2013See Tittizer v. Union Gas Corp., 171 S.W.3d 857, 862 (Tex. 2005); In re Marriage of Palacios, 358 S.W.3d 662, 664 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, pet. denied). -3- 04-11-00444-CV Bravenec also contends the trial court erred by denying his request for continuance because the sanctions hearing was set on the non-evidentiary hearing docket and he was not prepared to present witnesses.

2013See Tittizer v. Union Gas Corp., 171 S.W.3d 857, 862 (Tex. 2005); In re Marriage of Palacios, 358 S.W.3d 662, 664 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, pet. denied). -3- 04-11-00444-CV Bravenec also contends the trial court erred by denying his request for continuance because the sanctions hearing was set on the non-evidentiary hearing docket and he was not prepared to present witnesses.

2009See Dears , 154 S.W.3d at 614-15 .

2008Butler v. Arrow Mirror & Glass, Inc. , 51 S.W.3d 787, 792 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.); see In re K.R.P. , 80 S.W.3d 669, 674 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (stating that trial court's legal conclusions are not binding on appellate court and are reviewable de novo).

2008Butler v. Arrow Mirror & Glass, Inc. , 51 S.W.3d 787, 792 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.); see In re K.R.P. , 80 S.W.3d 669, 674 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (stating that trial court's legal conclusions are not binding on appellate court and are reviewable de novo).

1999See id.

1998See Remington Arms Co. v. Canales, 837 S.W.2d 624 (Tex.1992). [2] After reviewing the record and conducting a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court certified a class of approximately 400,000 Texans "who presently own Model 700 rifles." The trial court's order subdivided the class into residents owning rifles manufactured before February 19, 1982, with allegedly defective fire controls and bolt locks, and residents owning rifles manufactured on or after February 19, 1982, with allegedly defective fire controls.

1998See Remington Arms Co. v. Canales, 837 S.W.2d 624 (Tex.1992). 2 After reviewing the record and conducting a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court certified a class of approximately 400,000 Texans “who presently own Model 700 rifles.” The trial court’s order subdivided the class into residents owning rifles manufactured before February 19,1982, with alegedly defective fire controls and bolt locks, and residents owning rifles manufactured on or after February 19, 1982, with allegedly defective fire controls.