legal duty rule in Texas

2026In re Whitfield, No. 03-18-00564-CV, 2018 WL 4140735 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 29, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, orig. proceeding)).

2025In re Whitfield, No. 03-18-00564-CV, 2018 WL 4140735 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 29, 2018, no pet.) (citing In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, orig. proceeding)).

2021In re Prado, 522 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

2021In re Prado, 522 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

2022In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, orig. proceeding); In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding).

2018In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.–Waco 2003, orig. proceeding); In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding).

2026See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding) (citing O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992)).

2014App. P. 52.7(a)(1). obtain mandamus relief compelling a trial court to rule on a properly filed motion, a relator must provide a record demonstrating that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) either refused or failed to rule on the motion within a reasonable time.5 Whitlock has failed to provide such a record here.6 Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.7 ____________________________________________ Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field Filed: October 28, 2014 5 In re Layton,

2024See In re Prado, 522 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (explaining that to obtain mandamus relief for trial court’s refusal to rule, relator must show that the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed to do so).

2024See In re Prado, 522 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

2019In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding); see In re Layton, 257 S.W.3d 794, 795 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding).

2014App. P. 52.7(a)(1). obtain mandamus relief compelling a trial court to rule on a properly filed motion, a relator must provide a record demonstrating that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) either refused or failed to rule on the motion within a reasonable time.5 Whitlock has failed to provide such a record here.6 Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.7 ____________________________________________ Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field Filed: October 28, 2014 5 In re Layton,

2014See O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Dimas, 88 S.W.3d 349, 351 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, orig. proceeding).

2014See O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Dimas, 88 S.W.3d 349, 351 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, orig. proceeding).

2026See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding) (citing O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992)).

2026See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding) (citing O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992)).

2016Even assuming that the district court received the motions shortly after those dates, four and 3 In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, orig. proceeding); In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). 4 In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 662 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). 5 Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 See In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. p

2013In re Keeter , 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.--Waco 2003, orig. proceeding); In re Villarreal , 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding); Barnes , 832 S.W.2d at 426-27 .

2025To be entitled to mandamus relief in the form of ordering the trial court to rule on a motion, Mack must establish that “the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed or refused to rule on the motion within a reasonable time.” In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

2024To be entitled to relief, relator must establish that “the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed or refused to rule on the motion within a reasonable time.” In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding).

2025See In re GTG Sols., Inc., 642 S.W.3d 47 , 49– 50 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, orig. proceeding); In 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 (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).

2025See In re GTG Sols., Inc., 642 S.W.3d 47 , 49–50 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, orig. proceeding); In 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– 6 Edinburg 2014, orig. proceeding); In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d 106, 106 (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); see also In re ADUSA Transp.

2025In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d 320 , 321 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); 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).

2025In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d 320 , 321 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); 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).

2014App. P. 52.7(a)(1). obtain mandamus relief compelling a trial court to rule on a properly filed motion, a relator must provide a record demonstrating that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) either refused or failed to rule on the motion within a reasonable time.5 Whitlock has failed to provide such a record here.6 Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.7 ____________________________________________ Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field Filed: October 28, 2014 5 In re Layton,

2014App. P. 52.7(a)(1). obtain mandamus relief compelling a trial court to rule on a properly filed motion, a relator must provide a record demonstrating that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) either refused or failed to rule on the motion within a reasonable time.5 Whitlock has failed to provide such a record here.6 Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.7 ____________________________________________ Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field Filed: October 28, 2014 5 In re Layton,

2015Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim.

2015Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim.

2015App. 2001) (orig. proceeding). of any discretion and the relator has a clear right to relief.2 The relief sought must be clear and indisputable, such that its merits are beyond dispute.3 “‘[C]onsideration of a motion properly filed and before the court is ministerial.’”4 When a mandamus petition is based on an allegation that a trial court has failed to rule on a properly filed motion, the relator will not be entitled to mandamus relief unless he establishes that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) either refused to rule on

2015App. 2001) (orig. proceeding). of any discretion and the relator has a clear right to relief.2 The relief sought must be clear and indisputable, such that its merits are beyond dispute.3 “‘[C]onsideration of a motion properly filed and before the court is ministerial.’”4 When a mandamus petition is based on an allegation that a trial court has failed to rule on a properly filed motion, the relator will not be entitled to mandamus relief unless he establishes that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) either refused to rule on

2022In re Robbins, 622 S.W.3d 600 , 601 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Gibson, 533 S.W.3d 916, 917 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2017 , orig. proceeding).

2022In re Robbins, 622 S.W.3d 600 , 601 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Gibson, 533 S.W.3d 916, 917 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2017 , orig. proceeding).

2022See In re Mendoza, 467 S.W.3d 76, 78 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, orig. proceeding). 1.

2019See In re Mendoza, 467 S.W.3d 76, 78 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (orig. proceeding).

2021See In re Prado, 522 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); Foster, 506 S.W.3d at 607.

2021See In re Prado, 522 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); Foster, 506 S.W.3d at 607.

2016Even assuming that the district court received the motions shortly after those dates, four and 3 In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, orig. proceeding); In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). 4 In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 662 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). 5 Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 See In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. p

2014App. P. 52.7(a)(1). obtain mandamus relief compelling a trial court to rule on a properly filed motion, a relator must provide a record demonstrating that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) either refused or failed to rule on the motion within a reasonable time.5 Whitlock has failed to provide such a record here.6 Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.7 ____________________________________________ Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field Filed: October 28, 2014 5 In re Layton,

2015See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922 .

2015See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922 . 2 Relator also requests that we compel the trial court to set bond.

1985“The ‘reasonably effective assistance’ standard came from MacKenna v. Ellis, 280 F.2d 592, 599 (5th Cir.1960), cert. den., 368 U.S. 887 , 82 S.Ct. 121 , 7 L.Ed.2d 78 .

1981The “breach of a legal duty standard,” formerly applied in retained counsel cases, 1 is gone with the wind. 2 The “reasonably effective assistance” standard came from MacKenna v. Ellis, 280 F.2d 592, 599 (5th Cir. 1960), cert. den., 368 U.S. 887 , 82 S.Ct. 121 , 7 L.Ed.2d 78 .

2023See Prado, 522 S.W.3d at 2 ; Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 759 ; Gonzalez, 2018 WL 1610916 , at *1.

2020See id. –3– Without certified or sworn copies of the motions and requests and documents showing he requested a ruling, relator cannot establish the trial court had a legal duty to rule on the motion and thus violated a ministerial duty.

2025“To show ‘a clear right to the relief sought,’ a relator must show that the facts and circumstances of the case ‘dictate but one rational decision “under unequivocal, well-settled . . . and clearly controlling legal principles.”’” In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim.

2024“When a conviction has been affirmed on appeal and the mandate has issued, general jurisdiction is not restored in the trial court.” State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d 592, 594 (Tex. Crim.

2024We permit recovery of mental anguish damages without an accompanying physical manifestation in “cases of intentional torts, gross negligence, or a willful and wanton disregard for another’s rights” or when “the nature of the tort alleged assures courts of the genuineness of mental anguish claims, even without resort to proof of physical manifestation.” Moore v. Lillebo, 722 S.W.2d 683, 685 (Tex. 1986).

2024To establish that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on a pending motion, the relator must show that the trial court: “(1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion[ ]; (2) was asked to rule on the motion[ ]; and (3) failed or refused to rule on the motion[ ] within a reasonable time.” In re Liverman, 658 S.W.3d 881 , 882 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2022, orig. proceeding); see also In re Shredder Co., L.L.C., 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006, original proceeding).

2024These include suits for wrongful death . . . and actions by bystanders for a close family member’s serious injury.”); Parkway Co., 901 S.W.2d at 442 (“[O]nce particularly disturbing events were 9 The reasons underlying our decision to allow bystander recovery instead of recognizing a broader claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress support this understanding of shock as a component of the legal duty analysis.

2024See Skinner v. State, 305 S.W.3d 593, 594 (Tex. Crim.