Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
786 opinions found
Nicholson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC
COA02
Harriet Nicholson, a declared vexatious litigant, filed a pro se restricted appeal without obtaining a mandatory prefiling order from the local administrative judge. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed Chapter 11 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which requires such litigants to obtain written permission before initiating new litigation, including appeals. The court determined that under Section 11.1035, it had an affirmative duty to dismiss the case because it was filed without the required permit. Because Nicholson failed to provide the necessary order—and instead provided an order showing the administrative judge had specifically denied her request—the court held it lacked authority to hear the appeal and dismissed the case.
Litigation Takeaway
"When facing a high-conflict pro se opponent, check the Office of Court Administration’s vexatious litigant list; if they are listed, any appeal they file without a permit from the local administrative judge is procedurally fatal and can be dismissed without the need to argue the merits."
Raven Robert Rodriguez v. State
COA11
Raven Robert Rodriguez was convicted of capital murder following the stabbing death of his long-term partner. On appeal, Rodriguez argued that the trial court erred by failing to limit the definitions of 'intentionally' and 'knowingly' in the jury charge and by admitting evidence of his prior acts of domestic violence against the victim. The Eleventh Court of Appeals held that while the jury charge was technically erroneous, it did not result in egregious harm given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including the defendant's admission and surveillance footage. Crucially, the court upheld the admission of prior domestic violence incidents, finding them relevant to establishing the nature of the relationship and the defendant's pattern of conduct.
Litigation Takeaway
"To successfully prove a pattern of domestic violence in family law cases, practitioners should prioritize objective corroboration—such as surveillance video, medical records, and photos—to supplement testimony. When prior acts of violence against the same partner are well-documented, they are highly admissible to establish context and risk, and appellate courts are unlikely to reverse such findings even if technical instructional errors occur at trial."
Capital City Security, LLC v. Pro-Vision Solutions, LLC
COA02
In this restricted appeal, Capital City Security challenged a no-answer default judgment because the plaintiff, Pro-Vision Solutions, failed to attach the mandatory Rule 185 affidavit to its suit on a sworn account. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed whether this procedural defect required reversal when the plaintiff also pleaded an alternative breach of contract claim. The court determined that because the decretal portion of the judgment did not specify a legal theory and the plaintiff had attached the underlying contracts and invoices to the petition, the claim was liquidated and supported by the alternative breach of contract theory. The court held that the judgment remained valid on the contract claim regardless of the missing affidavit, affirming the trial court's decision.
Litigation Takeaway
"Always use a 'belt and suspenders' pleading strategy by including an alternative breach of contract claim alongside specific statutory or sworn account claims. By attaching the underlying written instrument (such as an MSA or fee agreement) to your petition, you transform the debt into a liquidated claim, which can insulate a default judgment from reversal on technical grounds and eliminate the need for an evidentiary hearing on damages."
Castillo-Villamin v. State
COA02
In Castillo-Villamin v. State, the appellant challenged his convictions for aggravated kidnapping and robbery, arguing he should have received a sentencing mitigation because he released the victim in a 'safe place' and that the evidence for a 'deadly weapon' was insufficient since the knife was not immediately recovered. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed the 'safe place' defense using the Butcher factors—specifically remoteness, time of day, and the victim's condition—concluding that abandoning a victim at night in a remote area while intentionally depriving them of a cell phone precludes a finding of safety. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the victim’s and accomplice’s testimony was sufficient to establish the use of a deadly weapon regardless of when the physical weapon was found.
Litigation Takeaway
"Legal 'safety' requires more than the absence of immediate physical violence; it requires a 'communication nexus.' In family law contexts, proving that a party deprived a spouse or child of a phone or means to call for help can be used to defeat claims that a location was safe or to establish endangerment. Additionally, credible testimony alone is sufficient to secure family violence findings involving weapons, even if the weapon itself is never recovered by the police."
Adam Horwitz v. City of Denton, et al.
COA02
In this case, Appellant Adam Horwitz attempted to appeal interlocutory orders granting a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion to dismiss. Horwitz filed his notice of appeal nearly three months after the orders were signed, mistakenly believing that his filing of a motion for new trial extended the appellate deadline to 90 days, a belief reinforced by the trial court's docket labeling the orders as 'Final.' The Second Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1(b) and 28.1, which stipulate that accelerated appeals from interlocutory orders must be filed within 20 days and are not extended by motions for new trial. The court held that because the orders did not dispose of all parties and claims, they were interlocutory, the 20-day deadline applied, and the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never rely on a Motion for New Trial to extend your appellate deadlines for interlocutory orders. In accelerated appeals—common in family law for jurisdictional disputes or temporary injunctions—you must file your notice of appeal within 20 days of the signature, or you risk losing your right to appeal entirely."
DePriest v. DePriest
COA14
In this post-decree dispute, a husband sought amended Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) after plan administrators rejected the originals. The wife filed counterclaims for fraud and breach of contract, attempting to relitigate the property division established in the final 2019 decree, which had already been affirmed on appeal. The trial court dismissed the wife's claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that a trial court lacks the authority to substantively alter or "undo" a final property division once plenary power has expired and appellate remedies are exhausted. The court also held that the wife waived her right to 45-day trial notice under Rule 245 by participating in the hearing without objection.
Litigation Takeaway
"A final divorce decree affirmed on appeal is truly final; parties cannot use post-decree enforcement or QDRO proceedings as a vehicle to revive old disputes or launch collateral attacks on the original property division. Furthermore, procedural rights like trial notice are waived if you participate in a hearing without making a timely objection."
Ex Parte Giambi Boyd
COA01
In Ex Parte Boyd, a defendant was held for 560 days on a $1.2 million bond for murder and aggravated assault charges. Despite the severity of the crimes, the State admitted it was not ready for trial because forensic firearms testing was still pending. The First Court of Appeals analyzed Article 17.151 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that a felony defendant must be released on a personal bond or have their bail reduced to an affordable amount if the State is not ready for trial within 90 days of detention. The court held that this statute is mandatory and does not permit a "safety exception" for dangerous offenses. Consequently, because the defendant proved he could only afford a $5,000 bond, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and ordered the bail reduction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not rely on the criminal justice system to keep a violent or dangerous party incarcerated during a family law case; if the State isn't ready for trial within 90 days, the party may be released on a nominal bond regardless of the charges. Family law practitioners must proactively secure civil Protective Orders and restrictive temporary orders to ensure the safety of their clients and children."
Blevins v. Brown
COA07
In Blevins v. Brown, a plaintiff filed suit for slander and tortious interference but failed to include specific factual details regarding the alleged defamatory statements. After the defendant filed a Rule 91a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff attempted to file an amended petition on the day of the hearing to cure the defects. The Seventh Court of Appeals analyzed the conflict between the general amendment provisions of Rule 65 and the specific requirements of Rule 91a.5(c), determining that the specific three-day deadline for Rule 91a amendments is mandatory and supersedes general rules. The court held that the trial court properly refused to consider the late amendment and affirmed the dismissal, ruling that defamation claims lacking specific factual predicates constitute legally baseless 'threadbare recitals.'
Litigation Takeaway
"Precision is paramount when pleading 'crossover' torts like defamation in family law; you must provide specific facts—the who, what, when, and where—in your petition and remember that the Rule 91a amendment window closes strictly three days before the hearing."
In the Interest of L.L., a Child
COA02
After a trial court terminated a Father's parental rights to his child, L.L., based on endangerment and best-interest findings, his appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting the appeal was frivolous. The Second Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal existed. Finding no non-frivolous issues, the court affirmed the termination decree. However, the court clarified that under Texas Family Code § 107.016 and the Texas Supreme Court's precedent in In re P.M., appointed counsel’s obligations do not end at the intermediate court; the duty to represent the parent continues through potential proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless counsel is relieved for good cause.
Litigation Takeaway
"In parental termination cases, an appointed attorney's duty of representation is "sticky"—it persists through the exhaustion of all appeals, including a petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court, even if the intermediate court determines the appeal is frivolous."
In the Interest of T.M., a Child
COA11
In this parental termination case, the Department sought to terminate a mother's rights after her child, T.M., tested positive for methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana. The mother contended the exposure was accidental due to her work as a hotel housekeeper, but the Department also cited her failure to keep the child away from a drug-using father. The Court of Appeals analyzed the endangerment findings under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b), determining that the mother's choice to bring the child to a high-risk workplace and allow unsupervised contact with the father supported endangerment. However, the Court also scrutinized the Department's compliance with Section 161.001(f), which requires clear and convincing evidence of reasonable efforts to return the child. Ultimately, the Court issued a partial reversal and remand, holding that the Department failed to satisfy its high evidentiary burden for every mandatory statutory finding required to support the irrevocable termination of parental rights.
Litigation Takeaway
"Drug exposure is not a "universal solvent" that excuses the Department from its burden of proof; practitioners must ensure that every statutory element, particularly the requirement for reasonable reunification efforts under Section 161.001(f), is supported by clear and convincing evidence to avoid reversal on appeal."