eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2012-06

in Re: William Wallace Frey ( 2012 )


Menu:
 
  •                     In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
_________________________
No. 06-12-00061-CV
______________________________
IN RE:
WILLIAM WALLACE FREY
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
William Wallace Frey has petitioned this Court for mandamus relief. Frey claims in his
petition to have filed requests for declaratory judgment, which the trial court has failed to hear or
rule upon. Frey asks this Court to compel the trial court to set a hearing date to consider Frey’s
motions for declaratory judgment. We deny Frey’s requested relief.
Mandamus issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of
discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law, and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate
remedy at law. Walker v. Packer,
    827 S.W.2d 833
    , 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); see
In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas,
    290 S.W.3d 204
    , 207 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding).
It is the relator’s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to
mandamus relief.
    Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837
    ; In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp.,
    187 S.W.3d 197
    ,
198–99 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3.
Frey has provided this Court with no documents supporting his request. For example, he
has supplied no copies of the requests for declaratory judgment he claims to have filed with the
trial court. This Court then has no way of knowing if such requests were actually filed or when
they were filed.1
1
A trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and rule on a properly filed and pending motion within a reasonable
time. See In re Shaw,
    175 S.W.3d 901
    , 904 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding).
2
We find Frey has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to the extraordinary remedy of
mandamus relief. We, therefore, deny his petition.
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted:       June 19, 2012
Date Decided:         June 20, 2012
3