ruling error in Texas

2025“The purpose of the presentment rule is ‘to put the trial court on actual notice that a defendant desires the trial court to take some action on the motion for new trial such as a ruling or a hearing on it.’”1 Id. (quoting Stokes, 277 S.W.3d at 21 ).

2023The purpose of the presentment requirement is to “put the trial court on actual notice that a defendant desires the trial court to take some action on the motion for new trial such as a ruling or a hearing on it.” Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d 76, 78 (Tex. Crim.

2025“The purpose of the presentment rule is ‘to put the trial court on actual notice that a defendant desires the trial court to take some action on the motion for new trial such as a ruling or a hearing on it.’”1 Id. (quoting Stokes, 277 S.W.3d at 21 ).

2023“The purpose of the presentment rule is ‘to put the trial court on actual notice that a defendant desires the trial court to take some action on the motion for new trial such as a ruling or a hearing on it.’” Navarro, 588 S.W.3d at 691 (quoting Stokes v. State, 277 S.W.3d 20 , 21 3 (Tex. Crim.

2021“A party should not be estopped from challenging a court’s order when the party provides to the court a proposed order following what it believes was the court’s ruling at the hearing, and the court signs it.” 15 In re Bahn, 13 S.W.3d 865, 875 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, orig. proceeding).

2020“A party should not be estopped from challenging a court’s order when the party provides to the court a proposed order following what it believes was the court’s ruling at the hearing, and the court signs it.” In re Bahn, 13 S.W.3d 865, 875 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, orig. proceeding).

2013Cf. In re Bahn, 13 S.W.3d 865, 875 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, orig. proceeding) (“A party should not be estopped from challenging a court’s order when the party provides to the court a proposed order following what it believes was the court’s ruling at the hearing, and the court signs it.”); John Masek Corp. v. Davis, 848 S.W.2d 170 , 174–75 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ denied) (holding that “merely provid[ing] a draft judgment to conform to what the court had announced would be its judgment” does not result in waiver of an appeal).

2011John Masek Corp. v. Davis, 848 S.W.2d 170, 174-75 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ denied); see also In re Balm, 13 S.W.3d 865, 875 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2000, orig. proceeding) (“A party should not be estopped from challenging a court’s order when the party provides to the court a proposed order following what it believes was the court’s ruling at the hearing, and the court signs it.”).

2016Feldman v. State, 71 S.W.3d 738, 744 (Tex. Crim.

2011Feldman v. State, 71 S.W.3d 738, 744 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).

2008A mere showing that counsel failed to obtain a ruling or a hearing on pretrial motions does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel. (3) Wills v. State, 867 S.W.2d 852, 857 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd).

2008A mere showing that counsel failed to obtain a ruling or a hearing on pretrial motions does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.3 Wills v. State, 867 S.W.2d 852, 857 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref’d).

2010In such situations it is said that the appellant has waived his right to complain of the ruling to which no error was assigned.") (quoting Johnson v. Coggeshall , 578 S.W.2d 556, 560 (Tex. Civ.

2010In such situations it is said that the appellant has waived his right to complain of the ruling to which no error was assigned.”) (quoting Johnson v. Coggeshall, 578 S.W.2d 556, 560 (Tex. Civ.

2020“The purpose of the presentment rule is ‘to put the trial court on actual notice that a defendant desires the trial court to take some action on the motion for new trial such as a ruling or a hearing on it.’” Id. (quoting Stokes, 277 S.W.3d at 21 (quoting Carranza, 960 S.W.2d at 78 )); see Rozell v. State, 176 S.W.3d 228, 230 (Tex. Crim.

2011P. 21.6; Stokes v. State, 277 S.W.3d 20, 21 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (“The purpose of the presentment rule is ‘to put the trial court on actual notice that a defendant desires the trial court to take some action on the motion for new trial such as a ruling or a hearing on it.’”); Rozell v. State, 176 S.W.3d 228, 231 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (concluding that defendant does not preserve any error in the trial court’s failure to conduct a hearing if no request for a hearing was presented).

2015These steps must be taken in sequence, and counsel cannot object and move for an instruction and mistrial without obtaining a ruling on the objection." Hines, 269 S.W.3d at214 (quoting Hadden v. State, 829 S.W.2d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992, pet. refd)). 14 possession ofmarihuana.

2014These steps must be taken in sequence, and counsel cannot object and move for an instruction and mistrial without obtaining a ruling on the objection.” Hines, 269 S.W.3d at 214 (quoting Hadden v. State, 829 S.W.2d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref’d)). 14 possession of marihuana.

2025Jack v. Holiday World of Hous., 262 S.W.3d 42 , 49–50 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.); Humphries v. Advanced Print Media, 339 S.W.3d 206, 208 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.); see also Haubold v. Med.

2015Jack v. Holiday World of Houston, 262 S.W.3d 42 , 49–50 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.); Humphries v. Advanced Print Media, 339 S.W. 3d 206, 208 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.); see also Haubold v. Med.

2011Tex.R.App.P. 33; see Walnut, 907 S.W.2d at 912 (holding that: (1) where Walnut specially excepted to an affidavit attached to a motion to dissolve, on the basis that it did not show affiant’s personal knowledge, but failed to obtain a ruling on its exception, Walnut waived the claim for review; and (2) because Walnut never objected in the trial court that the motion to dismiss garnishment action was unsworn, he waived any such complaint on appeal).

2011TEX .R.APP .P. 33; see Walnut, 907 S.W.2d at 912 (holding that: (1) where Walnut specially excepted to an affidavit attached to a motion to dissolve, on the basis that it did not show affiant’s personal knowledge, but failed to obtain a ruling on its exception, Walnut waived the claim for review; and (2) because Walnut never objected in the trial court that the motion to dismiss garnishment action was unsworn, he waived any such complaint on appeal).

2010See United States EEOC v. W & O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 614 (11th Cir.2000) (explaining that, "while die employees received [only] economic remedies, the harm was not necessarily purely economic," but also included violation of employees' civil rights and "infliction of worry and emotional upset”). .

2010See United States EEOC v. W & O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 614 (11th Cir.2000) (explaining that, "while the employees received [only] economic remedies, the harm was not necessarily purely economic," but also included violation of employees' civil rights and "infliction of worry and emotional upset"). [28] As we reverse the mental-anguish award on evidentiary sufficiency grounds under Safeshred's fifth issue on appeal, we do not address Safeshred's fourth issue on appeal, which asserts that damages for mental anguish are not available in a Sabine Pilot cause of action.

2008See Akin v. Dahl , 661 S.W.2d 917, 921-22 (Tex. 1983). [10] Continental responds that the district court did not err in disregarding the conspiracy finding on this ground.

2008See Akin v. Dahl, 661 S.W.2d 917, 921-22 (Tex. 1983).10 Continental responds that the district court did not err in disregarding the conspiracy finding on this ground.

2005Balentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763, 768 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).

2005Balentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763, 768 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).

2002Huff v. State , 560 S.W.2d 652, 653 (Tex. Crim.

2002Huff v. State, 560 S.W.2d 652, 653 (Tex.Crim.App.1978).

1999See Bailey, 631 S.W.2d at 786 ; Hudson, 488 S.W.2d at 147 .

1990Bailey v. Rogers, 631 S.W.2d 784, 786 (Tex.App.—Austin 1982, no writ); Valley International Properties, Inc. v. Brownsville Savings and Loan Association, 581 S.W.2d 222, 225 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1979, no writ); Independence Insurance Co. v. Republic National Life Insurance Co., 447 S.W.2d 462, 470 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1969, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

2005Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488, 492 , 2005 Tex.Crim.

2005Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488, 492 , 2005 Tex.Crim.App.

2024See Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 119 (Tex. Crim.

2020Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 119 (Tex. Crim.

2017See Tex. Dep’t. of Transp. v. Able, 35 S.W.3d 608, 618 (Tex. 2000) (holding that exclusion of cumulative testimony was not harmful error).

2016See Tex. Dept. of Transp. v. Able, 35 S.W.3d 608, 618 (Tex. 2000) (holding that exclusion of cumulative testimony was not harmful error).

2017Co., Inc., 683 S.W.2d 173, 176 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1985, no writ.) (“Where a judgment may rest upon more than one ground, the party aggrieved must assign error to each such ground, or he has waived his right to complain of the ruling to which no error was assigned.”).

2007Co. , 683 S.W.2d 173, 176 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1985, no writ) (holding that “[w]here a judgment may rest upon more than one ground, the party aggrieved must assign error to each such ground, or he has waived his right to complain of the ruling to which no error was assigned”). 12: See generally Wheeler v. Green , 157 S.W.3d 439, 442-44 (Tex. 2005) (reversing summary judgment based on deemed admissions that pro se plaintiff had failed to timely answer). 13: Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. Steel , 997 S.W.2d 217, 223 (Tex. 1999); see Tex. R.

2015Estrella v. State, 82 S.W.3d 483, 485-86 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2002, pet dism’d); Butler v. State, 6 S.W.3d 636, 641 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d).

2011This requirement puts “the trial court on actual notice that a defendant desires the trial court to take some action on the motion for new trial such as a ruling or a hearing on it.’ ” Stokes v. State, 277 S.W.3d 20, 21 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (quoting Carranza, 960 S.W.2d at 78 ); see Butler v. State, 6 S.W.3d, 636, 639-40 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref d) (op. on reh’g) (discussing history of motions for new trial and presentment requirement in criminal cases).

2015"The admissibility of an out-of-court statement under the exceptions to the general hearsay exclusion rule is within the trial court's discretion." 14 Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex. Crim.

2014“The admissibility of an out-of-court statement under the exceptions to the general hearsay exclusion rule is within the trial court’s discretion.” 14 Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex. Crim.

2015See id. 29 The trial court’s ruling and instruction were not an abuse of discretion.

2015See id. 29 The trial court’s ruling and instruction were not an abuse of discretion.

2022To prove presentment, the record must show that the trial court had 13 actual notice of the defendant’s “desire for a ruling or a hearing on the motion.” Arrellano v. State, 555 S.W.3d 647, 655 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. ref’d).

2022But here, the record contains no notice of hearing, docket sheet entry setting a hearing date, order resetting or denying the motion, “or other proof that the trial court was actually aware of [appellant]’s request for a ruling or hearing on the motion.” Id.

2015Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629, 635 (Tex. 2012); Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W. 3d 217, 228 (Tex. 2004). vii this Court properly takes all evidence favorable to Norma as true and resolves all reasonable inferences and doubts in her favor, then the only proper holding is to allow a jury to determine whether Officer Walkers actions were taken in proper compliance with the laws and ordinances applicable to emergency actions or whether his actions were consciously indifferent to or in reckless disregard of Norma’s safety. 2 By this brief, Norma respectfully requests that the

2015Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 , 228–29 (Tex. 2004) (holding that the scheduling of a hearing of a plea to the jurisdiction is left to the discretion of the trial court).