In Re Ronald Ray Edinburgh Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-17-00041-CV _________________ IN RE RONALD RAY EDINBURGH ________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding County Court at Law No. 2 of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 13-30011-P ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In a mandamus petition concerning probate proceedings in the Estate of Udie Edinburgh, the relator, Ronald Ray Edinburgh, states that he filed motions with the trial court on November 1, 2016, and January 10, 2017. “To establish entitlement to mandamus relief for a trial court’s refusal to act, the relator must establish that the trial court had a legal duty to perform a ministerial act, relator made demand for performance, and the court refused to perform.” In re Dong Sheng Huang, 491 S.W.3d 383, 385 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding [mand. filed]). “The relator must show that the trial court received, was aware of, and was 1 asked to rule on the motion.” In re Greater McAllen Star Props., Inc., 444 S.W.3d 743, 748 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2014, orig. proceeding). Furthermore, determining what time period is reasonable for the trial court to rule is not subject to exact formulation and depends on the circumstances of the case. In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). In this case, Relator has not shown that the trial court refused to rule on properly filed motions that have been pending for an unreasonably long length of time. The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on March 8, 2017 Opinion Delivered March 9, 2017 Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.