Woods v. Schoenhofen

3 Citing cases

  1. Enriquez v. Livingston

    400 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. App. 2013)   Cited 44 times
    Holding trial court did not err by failing to provide inmate oral hearing before dismissing his suit for want of prosecution pursuant to the court's inherent power

    We are aware of two cases containing language that could be read as supporting the proposition that an oral hearing is required for an inherent-power dismissal for want of prosecution. See Franklin v. Sherman Indep. Sch. Dist., 53 S.W.3d 398, 401 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, pet. denied); Woods v. Schoenhofen, 302 S.W.3d 576, 578 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2009, pet. denied). In Franklin, the court, after discussing the existence of both Rule 165a and a court's inherent power as bases for a dismissal for want of prosecution, stated: “Regardless of the grounds for dismissal, however, the trial court ordinarily is required to provide notice of a hearing and conduct an oral hearing prior to dismissal.”

  2. In re J.A.M.

    NUMBER 13-18-00494-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 8, 2019)   Cited 3 times
    Concluding that error was apparent on the face of the record in a restricted appeal when the OAG failed to receive notice and hearing

    This sequence of events affirmatively demonstrates an absence of notice to the OAG of the proceedings resulting in the trial court's modification order. See Campbell v. Stucki, 220 S.W.3d 562, 570 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2007, no pet.) (holding that the trial court deprived the adverse parties of an opportunity to be heard by signing an order on a motion to release garnished funds without holding a hearing); see also In re Office of the Attorney Gen. of Tex., 2018 WL 5274147, at *6; Garcia v. Harding, 545 S.W.3d 8, 14-15 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, no pet.) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion in entering judgment on a Rule 11 agreement without proper notice); Woods v. Schoenhofen, 302 S.W.3d 576, 579 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, no pet.) (concluding in restricted appeal that the trial court's action in dismissing the case for want of prosecution without a hearing was an abuse of discretion apparent from the face of the record). We conclude that error is apparent from the face of the record.

  3. Saldana v. Hinojosa

    517 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. App. 2017)   Cited 7 times
    Holding notice insufficient as to any ground for dismissal where notice stated a case was set for "Docket Control Conference/DWOP" and did not advise that the case would be dismissed for failure to appear

    An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision to dismiss for want of prosecution under the abuse of discretion standard. Dobroslavic v. Bexar Appraisal Dist. , 397 S.W.3d 725, 728 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2012, pet. denied) (citing MacGregor v. Rich , 941 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997) ); Woods v. Schoenhofen , 302 S.W.3d 576, 578 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2009, no pet.) (citing Villarreal v. San Antonio Truck & Equip. , 994 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1999) ). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner or without reference to any guiding rules or principles.