Is mandamus available if a trial court refuses to rule on a motion?
Yes. The act of considering and ruling on a properly filed motion is a ministerial act. In re Bonds, 57 S.W.3d 456, 457 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2001, orig. proceeding). Mandamus will issue when there is a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary act, a demand for performance, and a refusal to act. O'Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992). Although a trial court has a reasonable time within which to perform its ministerial duty to rule on a pending motion, In re Guetersloh, 326 S.W.3d 737, 740-41 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 2010, orig. proceeding), a trial court commits a clear abuse of discretion when it refuses to rule on a properly filed motion. See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992). There is no adequate remedy at law for a trial court’s failure to rule because “[f]undamental requirements of due process mandate an opportunity to be heard.” See In re Christensen, 39 S.W.3d 250, 251 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 2000, orig. proceeding) (citing Creel v. Dist. Atty. for Medina Cnty., 818 S.W.2d 45, 46 (Tex. 1991)).
Labels
- Affirmative Defenses
- Appeals
- Attorneys' Fees
- Contracts
- Copyright
- Damages
- Discovery
- Employees
- Employers
- Equity
- Evidence
- Fraud
- Infringement
- Injunctions
- Insurance Claims
- Jurisdiction
- Lost Profits
- Malpractice
- Mandamus
- Mistake
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Partners
- Partnerships
- Privileges
- Prospective Contracts
- Proximate Cause
- Quantum Meruit
- Remedies
- Shareholder Rights
- Special Appearance
- Specific Performance
- Statutes of Limitations
- Texas Theft Liability Act
- Tortious Interference
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark
- Unfair Competition by Misappropriation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment