failed rule in Texas

2011See id.; In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); see also In re Cash, 99 S.W.3d 286, 288 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2003 , orig. proceeding) (granting mandamus relief when the trial court failed to rule on a motion for almost five months).

2011See id. ; In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App. - Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); see also In re Cash , 99 S.W.3d 286, 288 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 2003, orig. proceeding) (granting mandamus relief when the trial court failed to rule on a motion for almost five months).

2007See id. ; see also In re Cash , 99 S.W.3d 286, 288 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 2003, orig. proceeding)(conditionally granting writ of mandamus when the trial court failed to rule on a motion for forensic DNA testing for five months).

2005See id. ; see also In re Cash , 99 S.W.3d 286, 288 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2003, orig. proceeding) (conditionally granting writ of mandamus when the trial court failed to rule on a motion for forensic DNA testing for five months).

2023See Prado, 522 S.W.3d at 2 .

2021See Prado, 522 S.W.3d at 2 ; Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 759 .

2014See In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 538 (Tex. 2003) (appellant’s burden to show trial court’s error prejudiced appellant); Meachum v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 36 S.W.3d 612, 615 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, pet. denied) (appellant’s burden to establish reversible error).

2014See In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 538 (Tex. 2003) (appellant’s burden to show trial court’s error prejudiced appellant); Meachum v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 36 S.W.3d 612, 615 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, pet. denied) (appellant’s burden to establish reversible error).

2014See In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 538 (Tex. 2003) (appellant’s burden to show trial court’s error prejudiced appellant); Meachum v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 36 S.W.3d 612, 615 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, pet. denied) (appellant’s burden to establish reversible error).

2014See In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 538 (Tex. 2003) (appellant’s burden to show trial court’s error prejudiced appellant); Meachum v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 36 S.W.3d 612, 615 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, pet. denied) (appellant’s burden to establish reversible error).

2011See id.; In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); see also In re Cash, 99 S.W.3d 286, 288 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2003 , orig. proceeding) (granting mandamus relief when the trial court failed to rule on a motion for almost five months).

2011See id. ; In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App. - Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); see also In re Cash , 99 S.W.3d 286, 288 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 2003, orig. proceeding) (granting mandamus relief when the trial court failed to rule on a motion for almost five months).

2009When the trial court failed to rule on the pending motions, Relators filed a mandamus petition on August 5, 2009 and we requested that the Real Parties in Interest file a response.1 In its response, Lexington states it does not oppose Relators’ request for mandamus relief and it agrees that In re The Shredder Company, L.L.C., 225 S.W.3d 676 (Tex.App.–El Paso 2006, orig. proceeding) controls the disposition of this case.

2009When the trial court failed to rule on the pending motions, Relators filed a mandamus petition on August 5, 2009 and we requested that the Real Parties in Interest file a response. (1) In its response, Lexington states it does not oppose Relators' request for mandamus relief and it agrees that In re The Shredder Company, L.L.C. , 225 S.W.3d 676 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2006, orig. proceeding) controls the disposition of this case.

2024Finally, if we were to construe Williams’s request for relief in this Court as a complaint that the trial court failed to rule on a motion Williams claims to have filed in the trial court, we point out that, while “[t]rial courts are required to consider and rule on motions within a reasonable time,” “[d]etermining what time period is reasonable is not subject to exact formulation.” In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d at 662 .

2021See In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d at 662 .

2025App. P. 38.1(i), and our review of the record did not reveal that any such motions had actually been filed. 16 2022 WL 908948 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 29, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op. on reh’g) (“Generally, the movant on a motion has the burden to set a hearing on the motion.” (citing Enriquez v. Livingston, 400 S.W.3d 610, 619 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. denied))).

2024This Court cannot order the trial court to rule on a motion when the relator has not established that the motion was ever filed in the trial court or brought to the trial court’s attention.2 See O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (to obtain mandamus relief, relator must show trial court had legal duty to perform non-discretionary act, relator made demand for performance, and trial court refused); In re Cole, 2021 WL 243894 , at *1 (relator not entitled to mandamus relief where there was no indication complained-about motion was filed in trial court or brought to

2023But he did not brief that issue to this court, and points not briefed are waived.”); In re E.D.M., No. 14-09-00727-CV, 2010 WL 3418211 , at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 31, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Because appellant did not challenge the trial court’s ruling on the motion for new trial in his original brief, this particular argument is waived.”); Finney v. Finney, 164 S.W.2d 263, 266 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1942, writ 19 support the jury’s finding that Anderson was not negligent, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sturdivant’s motion for new trial.

2020See Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, 1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Robert James Campbell, cause number 05861900101F - 3, in the 232nd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Josh Hill presiding. orig. proceeding).

2019See Carter v MacFadyen, 93 S.W.3d 307 , 310 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied.) (citing TEX.

2019S. Concrete, Inc., No. 14-04-00553- CV, 2005 WL 1150204 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 17, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re B.S.W., No. 14-04-00496-CV, 2004 WL 2964015 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 23, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re E.L.T., 93 S.W.3d at 375 ; Waste Water, Inc. v. Alpha Finishing & Developing Corp., 874 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ). 4 Although I agree with that proposition, an argument can be made that the T.D.N. court erred in applying it by holding that the trial court failed to rule on the motions, because the t

2019See id.

2018“An accused who attests when he enters his plea of guilty that he understands the nature of his plea and that it is voluntary has a heavy burden on appeal to show that his plea was involuntary.” Labib v. State, 239 S.W.3d 322, 332 (Tex. App—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.).

2018See Martinez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. Crim.

2015P. 38.1(i) (“The brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.”). 7 Sumner cites to this ordinance as “TWO STORY ORDINANCE 115 § 3.e, adopted 12/15/1981.” We cannot identify any ordinance matching this description 11 does not identify these arguments as numbered issues, he argues that the final judgment did not dispose of all of his claims and that the trial court failed to rule on his motion for summary judgment. 8 Standards of Review “When a party challenges a zoning board’s action by filing a writ of ce

2015See Burrow v. Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229, 238 (Tex.1999) (holding that actual damages need not be shown prior to entitlement to fee forfeiture). 14 .

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).

2014However, the one satisfaction rule “‘prevents a claimant from recovering more than the amount required for full satisfaction of his damages.’” Brewer, 2014 WL 3512836 , at *6 (quoting El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Berryman, 858 S.W.2d 362, 364 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam).

2014See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding) (holding a trial court is required to consider and rule upon a motion within a reasonable time).

2013See Welex v. Broom, 823 S.W.2d 704, 709 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1992, writ denied) (reversing death penalty sanctions judgment when the trial court failed to test or consider less stringent sanctions).

2013See Cruz, 225 S.W.3d at 548 .

2011See id. ; In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App. - Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); see also In re Cash , 99 S.W.3d 286, 288 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 2003, orig. proceeding) (granting mandamus relief when the trial court failed to rule on a motion for almost five months).

2011See id. ; In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App. - Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); see also In re Cash , 99 S.W.3d 286, 288 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 2003, orig. proceeding) (granting mandamus relief when the trial court failed to rule on a motion for almost five months).