334, 336 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1997, pet. denied); In re Fuentes, 960 S.W.2d 261, 264 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1997, orig. proceeding); First Nat'l Bank of Giddings, Tex. v. Birnbaum, 826 S.W.2d 189, 190-91 (Tex.App.—Austin 1992, no writ) (op. on reh’g); Energo Int’l Corp. v. Modern Indus. Heating, Inc., 722 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1986, no writ). One reason for not considering docket entries on appeal is that they are inherently unreliable. See, e.g., Energo, 722 S.W.2d at 151 n. 2. An exception to this rule is that docket entries may be examined to correct clerical errors in judgments or orders or to determine the meaning of words used in a judgment or order. See N-S-W Corp. v. Snell, 561 S.W.2d 798, 799 (Tex W.2d 439, 441 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ) (<HOLDING>); First Nat’l Bank of Giddings, Tex., 826
holding that appellant did not preserve error because he failed to obtain ruling on motion for continuance holding appellant failed to preserve error when trial judge overruled objection without comment and record gave no indication of basis for objection asserted on appeal holding that appellant failed to preserve error because it did not present appellate complaint to trial court holding that court lacked jurisdiction for appeal where only evidence of application for turnover relief was in the trial courts docket sheet holding that appellant failed to preserve error for appeal where only indication that trial court ruled on a motion to transfer venue was a docket sheet notation