in Re: Steve Nelson

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 8, 2004
• Docket: 14-04-00578-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 8, 2004

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 8, 2004.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00578-CV

IN RE STEVE NELSON, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

On June 16,  2004, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court.  See Tex. Gov=t. Code Ann. ' 22.221 (Vernon Supp. 2003); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.  He complains that the trial court failed to rule on his no-evidence motion for summary judgment, which was submitted to the trial court two days earlier on June 14, 2004.

Mandamus is intended to be an extraordinary remedy, available only in limited circumstances.  Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992).  Such a limitation is necessary to preserve orderly trial proceedings and to prevent the constant interruption of the trial process by appellate courts.  Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Tex. 1994).  Consistent with this narrow approach to mandamus, the burden of showing an abuse of discretion as well as the inadequacy of a remedy by appeal is placed on the relator.  Id.  This burden is a heavy one.  Id.  As a general rule, mandamus is available only when it is conclusively shown that a judge has a clear legal duty to act and has refused to do so.  In re Am. Media Consol., 121 S.W.3d 70, 74 (Tex. App.CSan Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding).

Relator has not met his burden in showing an abuse of discretion.  We deny relator=s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Petition Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 8, 2004.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Anderson, and Hudson.