In re Carter

6 Citing cases

  1. Callender v. State

    No. 07-13-00069-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 12, 2013)   Cited 3 times

    It is true that appellant said he wanted a speedy trial; yet, it is equally true that he is not entitled to a trial at a time of his choosing. In re Carter, 958 S.W.2d 919, 924 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1997, orig. proceeding). The wheels of justice must be afforded a reasonable amount of time to turn, and the time taken here did not deny appellant a speedy trial when all circumstances are considered.

  2. In re Vasquez

    No. 07-13-00374-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 5, 2013)

    Furthermore, no litigant is entitled to trial at the time he selects. In re Carter, 958 S.W.2d 919, 924 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1997, orig. proceeding). Rather, the trial court has the duty and corresponding power to control its docket and select which case to try.

  3. In re Markowitz

    No. 10-10-00116-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 7, 2010)

    As a party to the suit, Markowitz is not entitled to a witness fee. See Villanueva v. Rodriguez, 300 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1957, writ ref'd n.r.e.); see also In re Carter, 958 S.W.2d 919, 922-23 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1997, orig. proceeding) (Assuming Carter was entitled to the witness fee, he failed to show the absence of an adequate legal remedy). We overrule issue seven.

  4. Guest v. Dixon

    223 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. App. 2006)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that conscious indifference test does not apply to dismissals under the inherent power of the trial court

    A litigant is not entitled to a special setting at the time he selects; rather the trial court has the duty and power to control the docket. In re Carter, 958 S.W.2d 919, 924 (Tex.App.-Amarillo, 1997, orig. proceeding). Among other things, Dixon's proposed scheduling order set a discovery deadline of August 1, 2001, for amending pleadings of August 15, 2001, and mediation deadline.

  5. In re Kuhler

    60 S.W.3d 381 (Tex. App. 2001)   Cited 9 times
    Holding a party had no right to a jury trial in a temporary guardianship proceeding

    Moreover, the burden lies with the relator or applicant to satisfy both elements. In re Carter, 958 S.W.2d 919, 922 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1997, no pet.). Here, Kuhler did not argue that he lacked adequate legal remedy.

  6. In re Dynamic Health

    32 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. App. 2000)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that trial court was warranted in imposing death penalty sanctions after finding that lesser sanctions imposed failed to compel compliance with discovery requests

    In order to warrant extraordinary relief, the sanctions award must 1) preclude a decision on the merits; 2) impede the defense or prosecution of the case; 3) deny substantial rights; or 4) cause some type of immediate irreparable injury to render mandamus appropriate. In re Carter, 958 S.W.2d 919, 923 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1997, orig. proceeding). One or more of these factors must be raised before the trial court and an adverse ruling obtained in order to preserve for mandamus review the alleged abuse of discretion by the trial court.