Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
786 opinions found
In re K.M.R., a Child
COA14
In this parental termination case, a mother appealed the loss of her parental rights after her child tested positive for cocaine at birth. She argued that the trial court violated her due process by denying a request to delay the trial while she was in a behavioral hospital, and that her prenatal drug use did not constitute an endangering 'environment' because the child was removed immediately after birth. The 14th Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, holding that the mother failed to follow mandatory procedures by not including a sworn affidavit with her request for a delay. The court also clarified that under Texas law, the 'environment' of a child includes the womb, meaning drug use during pregnancy is sufficient evidence of endangerment to support termination.
Litigation Takeaway
"Always adhere to the technical requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 251 when seeking a trial delay; failing to include a sworn verification or affidavit can prevent you from challenging the denial on appeal. Furthermore, be aware that Texas courts consider prenatal drug use as creating an endangering environment, effectively neutralizing the defense that a parent never had post-birth custody of the child."
Trevino v. Trevino
COA01
After Mark Anthony Trevino appealed a family law judgment, the trial court exercised its plenary power to grant a motion for new trial. The parties requested that the appellate court abate (pause) the appeal pending the outcome of the new trial. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the jurisdictional requirements for an appeal, noting that appellate jurisdiction generally requires a final judgment. The court held that because the grant of a new trial effectively vacates the original judgment, there was no longer a final order for the court to review. Consequently, the court held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal entirely rather than granting an abatement.
Litigation Takeaway
"A trial court’s order granting a new trial acts as a total 'reset' button that vacates the original judgment; this automatically divests the appellate court of jurisdiction, resulting in a dismissal of the appeal rather than a temporary pause."
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."
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."
Ex Parte Giambi Boyd
COA01
After being detained for 560 days on a $1.2 million bond for felony charges, Giambi Boyd sought a bond reduction because the State failed to announce it was ready for trial within the statutory 90-day window. The trial court denied his pretrial writ of habeas corpus despite the State admitting it was still awaiting forensic lab results. The First Court of Appeals reversed the decision, analyzing Article 17.151 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that a felony defendant must be released on personal bond or have their bail reduced to an affordable amount if the State is not ready for trial within 90 days. The court held that this provision is mandatory and takes precedence over general safety factors, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by maintaining an unattainable bond.
Litigation Takeaway
"In high-conflict family law cases involving parallel criminal charges, practitioners can use Article 17.151 to prevent 'strategic detention.' If the State is not ready for trial within 90 days of a client's felony arrest, counsel can force a bond reduction to an affordable amount, ensuring the client can participate in mediation, attend hearings, and defend their parental rights in the civil suit."
Hyde v. Aero Valley Property Owners Association, Inc.
COA02
The Hyde Parties appealed a summary judgment regarding airport management authority but only targeted the primary appellee (POA), intentionally excluding twenty-five intervening property owners who had been awarded identical declaratory relief in the same judgment. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals analyzed the 'doctrine of entangled interests' and the finality of unchallenged judgments, concluding that when a party fails to challenge a portion of a judgment granting the same relief to an intervenor as it does to the primary appellee, that portion remains binding. The court held that because the judgment in favor of the intervenors became final and could not be disturbed, the appeal against the POA was rendered moot, necessitating an affirmance of the entire judgment without reaching the underlying merits.
Litigation Takeaway
"In cases involving intervenors—such as grandparents in custody battles or business entities in property divisions—failing to specifically name and challenge the relief granted to those third parties in your appeal can result in a total waiver of your right to challenge the judgment as a whole."
In re Kirt McGhee
COA09
In a dispute over attorney’s fees, a trial court ordered a party to produce unredacted billing invoices and supplemental expert disclosures, despite a prior appellate ruling that the original disclosures were sufficient. The Ninth Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief, holding that the 'law of the case' doctrine prevented the trial court from revisiting the adequacy of disclosures already validated on appeal. The court further clarified that seeking attorney's fees does not result in an automatic waiver of attorney-client privilege for billing descriptions and that a party cannot be compelled to produce records that are no longer in their possession or control.
Litigation Takeaway
"Requesting attorney’s fees does not waive your right to redact privileged strategy and communications from your billing records; additionally, once an appellate court confirms your expert disclosures are adequate, the trial court cannot force you to supplement them with more detail on remand."
Absolute Oil + Gas, LLC v. Chord Energy Corp.
COA01
In Absolute Oil + Gas, LLC v. Chord Energy Corp., the trial court severed dismissed tort and unjust enrichment claims from an ongoing contract dispute to create a final, appealable judgment. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the severance under the three-prong Guaranty Federal test, focusing on whether the claims were 'factually interwoven.' The court found that because all claims stemmed from the same alleged collusive scheme to inflate costs and shared identical parties and evidence, severance risked inconsistent rulings—particularly regarding whether an express contract barred quasi-contractual recovery. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion, reversing the severance order because the claims were inextricably linked by shared operative facts.
Litigation Takeaway
"Prevent 'divide and conquer' tactics in complex property litigation by using the Interwoven Claims Doctrine to block the severance of tort claims (like fraud on the community) from the main property division, ensuring a single, cohesive 'just and right' adjudication."
Childress v. Tradd
COA03
Following the death of Robert Caldwell, the executor of his estate sued Dione Childress for conversion after she removed estate property, claiming she was Caldwell's common-law wife. During litigation, Childress, acting pro se, failed to respond to discovery requests, including requests for admissions. The executor moved for summary judgment based on these 'deemed admissions.' Childress filed a response only four days before the hearing without seeking leave of court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, holding that under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c), a response filed less than seven days before a hearing is a nullity. Furthermore, under Rule 198.3, the failure to respond to admissions conclusively established the facts necessary for the estate to prevail. The court emphasized that pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as licensed attorneys.
Litigation Takeaway
"Procedural deadlines are absolute, and 'deemed admissions' are a litigation guillotine. In marriage and property disputes, failing to answer discovery requests can conclusively surrender your case, as courts will not grant leniency to pro se litigants who ignore the mandatory seven-day window for summary judgment responses or discovery deadlines."
In Re Jaimee Michelle Collins
COA04
In a Bexar County Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR), Relator Jaimee Michelle Collins filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion seeking to challenge a trial court's order. The Fourth Court of Appeals summarily denied the request, ruling that the Relator failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a). The court concluded that the Relator did not establish a clear right to relief by demonstrating both a manifest abuse of discretion by the trial court and the lack of an adequate remedy by ordinary appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"Mandamus is an "extraordinary" remedy, not a routine one; to succeed, a party must strictly adhere to procedural rules and provide a comprehensive record that proves the trial court's ruling was a clear abuse of discretion that cannot be fixed through a standard appeal."