941 (Tex.1998). “With respect to resolution of factual issues,” “[t]he relator must establish that the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision.” Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. However, “[a] trial court has no ‘discretion’ in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts. Thus, a clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion, and may result in appellate reversal by extraordinary writ.” Id. Abatement We have repeatedly held that a trial court abuses its discretion when it arbitrarily abates a civil case for an indefinite period of time. See In re Sims, 88 S.W.3d 297, 306 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, orig. proceeding); Gebhardt v. Gallardo, 891 S.W.2d 327, 330-32 (Tex s 2000, orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>); Trapnell v. Hunter, 785 S.W.2d 426, 429
holding that because the order lacked an independent basis it was an abuse of discretion to issue the mutual restraining order holding that order abating discovery from all but small group of plaintiffs until that groups claims were resolved unreasonably interfered with defendants ability to prepare a defense and was abuse of discretion holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding holding blanket order staying discovery on main issue because of related criminal proceeding was abuse of discretion because it vitiated defendants ability to prepare defense in civil case holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion