and talkative and told him that it was okay to say hello, but that he should quickly move on to the purpose of the call. Mr. Elliot[t] said something like, 'Don’t be so Vic. Just a quick hello ... how-are-ya ... okay, are you ready for the case number.' ” Because this evidence is disputed, we take Gardner's version of events as true for purposes of our review. 12 . Gardner also objected to some of the State’s summary-judgment evidence, but he failed to obtain a ruling on those objections. To the extent we could infer that the trial court implicitly overruled ■ his objections, Gardner does not complain on appeal that the trial court erred in overruling the objections. Therefore, the issue is waived. See Secure Comm, Inc. v. Anderson, 31 S.W.3d 428, 430-31 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). 13 . Gardner’s deposition testimony is
holding to warrant reversal the appellant must show both the error of the ruling and resulting prejudice holding that appellant waives right to complain of ruling to which no error was assigned holding that a ruling of the trial court to which no error has been assigned becomes the law of the case and is not subject to review by the court of appeals holding that failure to file a postjudgment motion on alleged error of law relating to ruling on exception to the statute of frauds that was committed for first time in the judgment waives any objection to that ruling and that in the absence of any other formal objection the issue is not preserved for appellate review holding that appellant did not preserve error because he failed to obtain ruling on motion for continuance