342 Texas opinions name it 9 courts 1874–2026 70 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Hearngreen2 sentences2012To obtain mandamus relief for the trial court's refusal to rule on a motion, a relator must establish: (1) the motion was properly filed and has been pending for a reasonable time; (2) the relator requested a ruling on the motion; and (3) the trial court refused to rule. (1) In re Sarkissian , 243 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. App.--Waco 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Hearn , 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). 2012To obtain mandamus relief for the trial court’s refusal to rule on a motion, a relator must establish: (1) the motion was properly filed and has been pending for a reasonable time; (2) the relator requested a ruling on the motion; and (3) the trial court refused to rule.1 In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). | 59 | 70 |
In Re Sarkissiangreen2 sentences2018To obtain mandamus relief for the trial court’s refusal to rule on a motion, a relator must establish that “(1) the motion was properly filed and has been pending for a reasonable time; 1 Smith was sentenced to twenty-five years’ incarceration as the result of a plea bargain agreement pertaining to two charges of aggravated sexual assault of a child. 2 (2) the relator requested a ruling on the motion; and (3) the trial court refused to rule.” Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d at 861 . 2014To obtain mandamus relief for the trial court’s refusal to rule on a motion, a relator must establish: “(1) the motion was properly filed and has been pending for a reasonable time; (2) the relator requested a ruling on the motion; and (3) the trial court refused to rule.” In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding). | 58 | 61 |
In Re Chavezgreen2 sentences2012To obtain mandamus relief for the trial court's refusal to rule on a motion, a relator must establish: (1) the motion was properly filed and has been pending for a reasonable time; (2) the relator requested a ruling on the motion; and (3) the trial court refused to rule. (1) In re Sarkissian , 243 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. App.--Waco 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Hearn , 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). 2012To obtain mandamus relief for the trial court’s refusal to rule on a motion, a relator must establish: (1) the motion was properly filed and has been pending for a reasonable time; (2) the relator requested a ruling on the motion; and (3) the trial court refused to rule.1 In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). | 22 | 29 |
in Re Greater McAllen Star Properties, Inc., Marilyn Hardison, and Jasen Hardisongreen2 sentences2024In re Z Resorts Mgmt., LLC, 2023 WL 5843583 , at *3; see In re Valle, No. 05-24-00004-CV, 2024 WL 358114 , at *1 –5– (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 31, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also Greater McAllen Star Props., Inc., 444 S.W.3d at 748 .5 A relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal from a trial court’s refusal to rule on a pending motion. 2023In re Greater McAllen Star Props., Inc., 444 S.W.3d 743 , 748–49 (Tex. App.––Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2014, orig. proceeding). 5 A relator has no adequate remedy at law from a refusal to rule. | 15 | 19 |
In Re Keetergreen2 sentences2015In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, orig. proceeding). 2014In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, orig. proceeding); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); see also In re Dallas Nat. | 10 | 10 |
in Re Robert O. Craiggreen2 sentences2025In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d 320 , 321 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Greater McAllen Star Props., Inc., 444 S.W.3d 743, 748 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2014, orig. proceeding); In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d 106 , 106–07 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). 2025In re Greater McAllen Star Props., Inc., 444 S.W.3d 743, 748 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2014, orig. proceeding); In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d 106 , 106–07 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). | 9 | 14 |
Barnes v. Stategreen2 sentences2022In re Greater McAllen Star Props., Inc., 444 S.W.3d 743, 748 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2014, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). 2015“A refusal to rule within a reasonable time would frustrate the process and, moreover, would constitute a denial of due course of the law.” Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424 (Tex.App. – Houston (1992). | 7 | 11 |
Dolcefino v. Randolphgreen2 sentences2016Dolcefino v. Randolph, 19 S.W.3d 906, 925 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). 2016See id. | 7 | 7 |
In Re Shredder Co., LLCgreen2 sentences2015In re Shredder Co., L.L.C., 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2006, orig. proceeding). 2012See In re Shredder Co., L.L.C., 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006, orig. proceeding). | 7 | 7 |
Stoner v. Masseygreen2 sentences2024In re Jeffrey, 2024 WL 90039 , at *1; see Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 1979); see also In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d 320 , 321 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). 2024See Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 1979); see also In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d 320 , 321 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). | 6 | 8 |
Crouch v. Shieldsgreen2 sentences2019Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 1979); In re Buholtz, No. 05-16-01312-CV, 2017 WL 462361 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 31, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); Crouch v. Shields, 385 S.W.2d 580, 582 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.). 2018Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843 (Tex. 1979); In re Buholtz, No. 05-16-01312-CV, 2017 WL 462361 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 31, 2017, orig. proceeding); Crouch v. Shields, 385 S.W.2d 580, 582 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 5 | 5 |
In Re Greenwellgreen2 sentences2011See In re Shredder Co., 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Greenwell, 160 S.W.3d 286, 288 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding)). 2010See In re Shredder Co. , L.L.C. , 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2006, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Greenwell , 160 S.W.3d 286, 288 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding)). | 5 | 5 |
Robinson v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See id. (a trial court's refusal to rule on a pro se motion is not subject to review); Ex parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116 , 116 n.1 (Tex. Crim. 2025See id. (a trial court's refusal to rule on a pro se motion is not subject to review); Ex parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116 , 116 n.1 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
In re Henrygreen2 sentences2023See In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d 320 , 321 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (citing In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d at 382 ). 2018In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding); In re Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep't, 483 S.W.3d 795, 797 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, orig. proceeding); In re Layton, 257 S.W.3d 794, 795 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. 3 proceeding). | 4 | 4 |
Allen Chadwick Burbage v. W. Kirk Burbage and Burbage Funeral Homegreen2 sentences2018App. P. 33.1(a) (preservation requires either a ruling or a refusal to rule); Burbage v. Burbage, 447 S.W.3d 249, 257 (Tex. 2014) (“[T]he objection must apprise the trial court of the error alleged such that the court has the opportunity to correct the problem.”); see also Thota, 366 S.W.3d at 691. 2018App. P. 33.1(a) (preservation requires either a ruling or a refusal to rule); Burbage v. Burbage, 447 S.W.3d 249, 257 (Tex. 2014) (“[Tjhe objection must apprise the trial court of the error alleged such that the court has the opportunity to correct the problem.”); see also Thota, 366 S.W.3d at 691. | 4 | 4 |
Frazier v. Khai Loong Yugreen2 sentences2014See Frazier v. Yu, 987 S.W.2d 607 , 609–10 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied) (comparing TEX. 2000Before the new Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure took effect on September 1, 1997, “a party objecting to summary judgment evidence had to obtain a written ruling on the objection or to have a lack of a ruling.” Frazier v. Yu, 987 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied). | 4 | 4 |
Mendez v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Id. at R. 33.1(a)(2); Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 341 (Tex. Crim. 2014Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 341 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). | 4 | 4 |
City of Galveston v. Graygreen2 sentences2026See City of Galveston v. Gray, 93 S.W.3d 587, 592 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 12 2002, pet. denied) (“The trial court abused its discretion in refusing to rule on the [governments’] respective pleas to the jurisdiction . . . . 2024See City of Galveston v. Gray, 93 S.W.3d 587, 590 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (disagreeing that city’s plea to jurisdiction was “implicitly” denied and dismissing interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction); see also W. | 3 | 5 |
Richard Seim and Linda Seim v. Allstate Texas Lloyds and Lisa Scottgreen2 sentences2025See FieldTurf USA, 642 S.W.3d at 837 (citations omitted); Seim v. Allstate Tex. Lloyds, 551 S.W.3d 161, 164 (Tex. 2018); see also TEX. 2019But Antero does not direct us to anywhere in the record to show that the motion for continuance was ruled on nor have we located “a clearly implied ruling by the trial court.” Seim v. Allstate Texas Lloyds, 551 S.W.3d 161, 166 (Tex. 2018); see Epicous Adventure Travel, LLC v. Tateossian, Inc., No. 08-18-00057-CV, 2019 WL 926278 , at *10 (Tex. App.—El Paso Feb. 26, 2019, no pet. h.) (relying on Seim in overruling challenge to trial court’s failure to permit jurisdictional discovery in special appearance proceeding in part because the party seeking such discovery never “obtained a ruling on its | 3 | 4 |
West v. Stategreen2 sentences2021“Further, the trial court must have ruled on the request, objection, or motion, either expressly or implicitly, or the complaining party must have objected to the trial court’s refusal to rule.” Id. (quoting West v. State, 121 S.W.3d 95, 114 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d) (citing TEX. 2016“Further, the trial court must have ruled on the request, objection, or 6 motion, either expressly or implicitly, or the complaining party must have objected to the trial court’s refusal to rule.” West v. State, 121 S.W.3d 95, 114 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d) (citing TEX. | 3 | 4 |
Smith, William A/K/A Bill Smithgreen2 sentences2026App. 2000)). 6 Johnson points to no specific evidence disclosed untimely that harmed him. 25 Additionally, to preserve error, a party must “obtain a ruling on the complaint or object to the trial judge’s refusal to rule.” Smith v. State, 499 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. 2024Further, “[t]o preserve error, a party must, among other things, obtain a ruling on the complaint or object to the trial judge’s refusal to rule.” Smith v. State, 499 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Moff v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Moff v. State, 131 S.W.3d 485, 489 (Tex. Crim. 2023See Moff, 131 S.W.3d at 489 . | 3 | 3 |
Thomas v. Longgreen2 sentences2019The City argues that the trial court’s refusal to rule on its pleas to the jurisdiction invokes the implicit ruling doctrine and cites Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334, 339 (Tex. 2006). 2012Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334, 338 (Tex.2006). | 3 | 3 |
In Re Polletgreen2 sentences2019Roberts, 255 S.W.3d at 641 ; see also Pollet, 281 S.W.3d at 535 . 2019Roberts, 255 S.W.3d 640, 641 ; see also Pollet, 281 S.W.3d at 535 . | 3 | 3 |
In re Texas Parks & Wildlife Departmentgreen2 sentences2018In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding); In re Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep't, 483 S.W.3d 795, 797 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, orig. proceeding); In re Layton, 257 S.W.3d 794, 795 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. 3 proceeding). 2018In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding); In re Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep’t, 483 S.W.3d 795, 797 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, orig. proceeding); In re Layton, 257 S.W.3d 794, 795 (Tex. App.– Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). | 3 | 3 |
Alejandro v. Bellgreen2 sentences2015Alejandro v. Bell, 84 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex.App.–Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.); Dolcefino v. Randolph, 19 S.W.3d 906, 926-27 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). 2004See Alejandro v. Bell, 84 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.) (holding trial court implicitly ruled on objections to summary judgment evidence where the appellant complained in his motion for new trial of the trial court’s refusal to rule on his objections). | 3 | 3 |
| In Re Smithgreen | 3 | 3 |
| In Re Champion Technologies, Inc.green | 3 | 3 |
| In Re MHI Partnership, Ltd.green | 3 | 3 |
| Ex Parte Batesgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Woodson Lumber Co. v. City of College Stationgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.red | 2 | 2 |
| Epicous Adventure Travel, LLC v. Tateossian, Inc. D/B/A Social Fix Media, Alternatively Social Fix Media, and Terry Tateossiangreen | 2 | 2 |
| Yancy v. UNITED SURG. PART. INTERN., INC.green | 2 | 2 |
| In re Fostergreen | 2 | 2 |
| Thierry v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| In Re Villarrealgreen | 2 | 2 |
| In Re Laytongreen | 2 | 2 |
| O'CONNOR v. First Court of Appealsgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Pena, Jose Luisgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lenz v. Lenz
green
2 sentences2024Id. 2024Id. 13 Here, Jimison did not make a timely request, objection, or motion regarding the alleged claims of bias, prejudice, and favoritism that she now makes on appeal. | 5 | 2019–2024 |
In Re Roberts
green
2 sentences2019Roberts, 255 S.W.3d at 641 ; see also Pollet, 281 S.W.3d at 535 . 2019Roberts, 255 S.W.3d 640, 641 ; see also Pollet, 281 S.W.3d at 535 . | 5 | 2008–2019 |
Ex Parte Bohannan
green
2 sentences2025See id. (a trial court's refusal to rule on a pro se motion is not subject to review); Ex parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116 , 116 n.1 (Tex. Crim. 2025See id. (a trial court's refusal to rule on a pro se motion is not subject to review); Ex parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116 , 116 n.1 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 2025–2025 |
| Jarvis v. United States green | 3 | 2004–2009 |
| Johnson, Manley Dewayne green | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| Tom Retzlaff v. Go America Communications Corporation, Aaron David Dubrinski, and John and/or Jane Doe green | 2 | 2015–2015 |
| Lugo v. State green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Armour v. State green | 2 | 1992–2008 |
| Diocese of Galveston-Houston v. Stone green | 2 | 2002–2002 |
| Wilson v. State green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Lubbock County v. Trammel's Bail Bonds green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| In Re MS green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Saldana v. State green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Scott v. State green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.