From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Bishop

Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler
Nov 23, 2005
No. 12-05-00333-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 23, 2005)

Opinion

No. 12-05-00333-CV

Opinion delivered November 23, 2005.

Original Proceeding.

Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J. and DeVASTO, J.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Relator Charles W. Bishop, III filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that this Court order the Honorable Deborah Oakes Evans, Judge of the 3rd Judicial District Court, Anderson County, Texas, to rule on his "motion for mandamus." We deny the writ.

Mandamus is available to correct a clear abuse of discretion where there is no adequate remedy at law. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992). A trial judge has a duty to consider and rule on motions within a reasonable time. In re Ramirez , 994 S.W.2d 682, 683 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Whether the judge has acted within a "reasonable time" depends on the circumstances of the particular case. In re Ramirez , 994 S.W.2d 682, 684 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Here, Bishop alleges that his "motion for mandamus" was mailed to the trial court on October 10, 2005 and asserts that a "reasonable time" has passed without a ruling from the respondent trial judge. However, neither the record nor the authorities cited in this proceeding support Bishop's conclusion. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.


Summaries of

In re Bishop

Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler
Nov 23, 2005
No. 12-05-00333-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 23, 2005)
Case details for

In re Bishop

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: CHARLES W. BISHOP, III, Relator

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler

Date published: Nov 23, 2005

Citations

No. 12-05-00333-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 23, 2005)

Citing Cases

In re Smithback

]" Smithback failed to furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support his claim for relief. See Tex. R.…