by it that interfered with execution and enforcement of judgment); Upjohn Co. v. Marshall, 843 S.W.2d 203, 204 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, orig. proceeding) (same). The trial court’s August 30, 2010 order dismissing Richardson’s claim against Dr. Foster for the prolonged pain and disability caused by his alleged misdiagnosis of her ankle fracture fails to carry out our March 11, 2010 mandate affirming the portion of the trial court’s judgment that denied Foster’s motion to dismiss and interferes with our opinion and judgment holding that Richardson’s expert’s report (the exact same report Richardson relies on in the trial court) was adequate as to that claim. Thus, the trial court’s August 30, 2010 order constitutes an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Columbia Med. Ctr., 306 S.W.3d at 248 (<HOLDING>). Dr. Foster argues that mandamus is
holding trial court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct hearing and render decision on motion holding that the issue was more appropriately framed as whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence at trial holding that trial court was required to give full effect to supreme courts judgment and that by failing to do so the trial court abused its discretion holding a party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly holding that trial courts limited findings were insufficient to allow determination of whether trial court abused its discretion in denying defendants motion to dismiss his indictment on constitutional speedy trial grounds