McConnell v. May

800 S.W.2d 194, 1990 WL 150076
Texas Supreme Court·Decided January 9, 1991·No. D-0215·Published·Cited by 124 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this original proceeding, Relator Gary L. McConnell (McConnell) seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial judge to vacate his July 2, 1990 order granting Plaintiff C.D. Blanchard’s unverified motion to reinstate. Pursuant to Rule 122 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, without hearing oral argument, a majority of the court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.

On April 18, 1990, Blanchard’s suit against McConnell was dismissed for want of prosecution. On April 24, 1990, Blanchard filed an unverified motion to reinstate. On July 2, 1990, the trial judge granted Blanchard’s motion. McConnell argues that the trial judge abused his discretion when he granted Blanchard’s unverified motion to reinstate. We agree.

“A motion to reinstate shall set forth the grounds therefor and be verified by the movant or his attorney. It shall be filed with the clerk within 30 days after the order of dismissal is signed_” TEX.R.CIV.P. 165a(3) (emphasis added). A proper motion to reinstate must be verified and filed with the clerk within 30 days of the signing of the order of dismissal. Butts v. Capitol City Nursing Home, Inc., 705 S.W.2d 696, 697 (Tex.1986). See Christopher v. Fuerst, 709 S.W.2d 266, 268 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.); George v. George, 564 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1978, no writ); Matter of Marriage of Parr, 543 S.W.2d 433, 437 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1976, no writ). Since Blanchard did not file a verified motion to reinstate within 30 days of the signing of the order of dismissal, the trial court’s jurisdiction to reinstate the case expired. See Butts, 705 S.W.2d at 697; Christopher v. Fuerst, 709 S.W.2d at 268.

Pursuant to Rule 122 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, without hearing oral argument, a majority of the court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only if the trial judge refuses to act in accordance with this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McConnell v. May, 800 S.W.2d 194, 1990 WL 150076 (Tex. 1991).

800 S.W.2d 194 (McConnell v. May) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Morris Reid, III v. Holloman Corporation
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2025
James Trimble v. Hilda Theresa Muniz
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2025
Donald Baker v. City of Austin
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2024
In Re Frederick Alsandor v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2023
in Re: Priscila Briseno
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2022
Unifund CCR, LLC v. Charles W. Whitaker
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2021
Kevin Marvin v. Malia Schneider
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2020
Dwight Gillis v. Harris County, TX
554 S.W.3d 188 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2018)
Young v. Di Ferrante
553 S.W.3d 125 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2018)