in Re Michael Allyn Conner and Iesi Solid Waste Services, 458 S.W.3d 532

In Dec. 2002 the Peels were injured in a collision with a truck driven by Michael Conner (employer IESI sued as well).
The Peels sued ~two years later; Conner answered and served discovery that the Peels did not respond to.
In June 2007 Conner moved for summary judgment; the Peels responded, the hearing was cancelled, and the motion never reoccurred.
From 2007 through 2013 the Peels took no further action to advance the case; Conner moved to dismiss for want of prosecution in 2011 and again in 2013.
The Peels attributed delay to their counsel’s unspecified health problems but provided no timeline or corroboration; the trial court twice refused to dismiss and ordered discovery and a trial setting.
Conner sought mandamus after the court of appeals denied relief; the Texas Supreme Court granted conditional mandamus and directed dismissal for want of prosecution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to dismiss for want of prosecution after nearly a decade of unexplained inactivity	The delay resulted from the Peels’ counsel’s health issues (stroke, bypass) — good cause existed	The delay was unexplained and unreasonable; docketing rules and Rule 165a require dismissal absent good cause	Court held the trial court abused its discretion; ordered dismissal under Rule 165a(2) for failure to show good cause

Callahan v. Staples, 161 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. 1942) (establishes presumption of abandonment after unreasonable, unexplained delay)
Villarreal v. San Antonio Truck & Equip., 994 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. 1999) (recognizes both inherent and Rule 165a authority to dismiss for want of prosecution)
Veterans’ Land Bd. v. Williams, 543 S.W.2d 89 (Tex. 1976) (delay may justify dismissal; exemplifies long-delay dismissals)
Denton Cnty. v. Brammer, 361 S.W.2d 198 (Tex. 1962) (same)
Bevil v. Johnson, 307 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. 1957) (same)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (abuse of discretion review requires correct application of law)
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (standards for abuse of discretion in civil cases)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus appropriate where appeal is inadequate to remedy delay)
So. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Stoot, 530 S.W.2d 930 (Tex. 1975) (stale evidence and memory loss risks increase with delay)