Court Opinion

ID: 9382909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 06:09:03.039378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:42.459223
License: Public Domain

DENY and Opinion Filed March 27, 2023

                                     S   In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 No. 05-23-00283-CV

     IN RE ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC, Relator

           Original Proceeding from the 191st Judicial District Court
                             Dallas County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-01615

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Breedlove
                           Opinion by Justice Breedlove
      In its March 24, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus, relator seeks relief from

the trial court’s oral ruling granting real party in interest’s motion to increase the

juror expense reimbursement in the underlying action.

      Rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires the relator to file an appendix that includes a

certified or sworn copy of the order complained of, “or any other document showing

the matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Although an appellate

court may issue a writ of mandamus based on a court’s oral pronouncements, it may

do so only if the trial court’s ruling is a clear, specific, and enforceable order that is

adequately shown by the record. In re Penney, No. 05–14–00503–CV, 2014 WL

2532307, at * 2, n. 3 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 4, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
An appellate court can determine whether an oral order meets these criteria by

reviewing the reporter’s record from the hearing. In re Penney, 2014 WL 2532307

at * 2; see also In re Winters, No. 05–08–01486–CV, 2008 WL 5177835, at *1 n. 1

(Tex. App.—Dallas Dec.11, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

      Here, the trial court has not signed a written order, and relator has not provided

a reporter's record of the hearing at which the oral ruling was made. Under these

circumstances, the record is insufficient for mandamus review. See In re Cokinos,

No. 05–16–01331–CV, 2016 WL 7163968, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 16, 2016,

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus. Having denied the petition, we also deny relator’s motion for expedited

relief as moot.

                                            /Maricela Breedlove/
                                            MARICELA BREEDLOVE
                                            JUSTICE

230283F.P05

                                         –2–