Cantu v. Longoria

Decision Date08 June 1994
Docket NumberNo. 94-0156,94-0156
Citation878 S.W.2d 131
PartiesJanie CANTU, Relator, v. The Honorable Raul L. LONGORIA, Judge, and the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, Respondents.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Kelly K. McKinnis, McAllen, Eloy Sepulveda, Weslaco, for relator.

Nora L. Morgan, McAllen, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

In this original proceeding, relator seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to conduct a TEX.R.APP.P. 5(b)(5) hearing to determine when relator received notice that the court had signed a judgment from which she wishes to appeal. Relator cannot appeal the judgment against her unless the trial court finds that she learned of the judgment more than twenty days after it was signed and within a period of time that would render her appeal timely. We conclude the trial court erred by refusing to hold the required hearing, and we conditionally grant relator's petition for writ of mandamus.

Janie Cantu sued Holiday Inns, Inc. ("Holiday Inns") for personal injuries she sustained in a slip-and-fall accident. Holiday Inns filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court held three hearings on the motion and ruled in Holiday Inns' favor two days after the third hearing, on August 4, 1993. The court's docket sheet indicates that it mailed notice to the attorneys on September 9, 1993, more than a month after the court signed the order. On October 21, 1993, Cantu filed with the trial court (1) a motion for new trial, and (2) a TEX.R.APP.P. 5(b)(5) motion for findings as to the date she received notice of the summary judgment order. Cantu claimed that she did not receive notice that the trial court had signed the order until September 21, 1993. The trial court did not set a hearing date for Cantu's TEX.R.APP.P. 5(b)(5) motion, and the motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law.

Thereafter, Cantu filed a cost bond and took other steps to perfect an appeal. The court of appeals, however, informed her by letter that she had not met the deadlines necessary to satisfy the appellate timetable. The court "note[d] that a motion to designate date of judgment ... was filed in the cause [but] nothing in the record [shows] that a finding was made by the trial court as required by TEX.R.APP.P. 5(b)(5)." The court of appeals did grant Cantu the opportunity to "correct the defect" before "the expiration of ten days from the date of receipt of this letter," and instructed her that her appeal would be dismissed if she failed to obtain a ruling within that time. On December 30, 1993, Cantu wrote the trial court, again requesting that it hold a hearing, but the trial court did not do so. Cantu then filed a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus with the court of appeals, which overruled her motion. Two days later, Cantu filed a similar motion with this court, and we granted Cantu immediate temporary relief.

Mandamus issues only to correct a clear...

To continue reading

Request your trial
143 cases
  • In re Does 1-10
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 12, 2007
    ...abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law. Cantu v. Longoria, 878 S.W.2d 131 (Tex.1994); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex.1992). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only to correct a c......
  • Diocese of Galveston-Houston v. Stone
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 19, 1994
    ...abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law, when there is no other adequate remedy at law. Cantu v. Longoria, 878 S.W.2d 131, 132 (Tex.1994) (per curiam). The writ may not issue when an adequate remedy at law exists. Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 684......
  • In re Green Tree Servicing LLC
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 23, 2008
    ...abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law and 2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law. Cantu v. Longoria, 878 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. 1994); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only to correct a clea......
  • Walmart, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 13, 2021
    ... ... adequate remedy at law." In re Blakeney , 254 ... S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) ... (citing Cantu v. Longoria , 878 S.W.2d 131 (Tex ... 1994) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding); Walker v ... Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT