Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
786 opinions found
Piper v. Tax Rescue II, LLC
COA14
In Piper v. Tax Rescue II, LLC, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed a dispute over whether a party received proper notice of a summary judgment motion and whether tax liens take priority over adverse possession claims. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a(e), which establishes that a certificate of service creates a rebuttable presumption of receipt. Because the appellant provided only unsworn allegations of non-receipt rather than affirmative evidence (such as affidavits or technical proof of delivery failure), the court held the presumption was not rebutted. Furthermore, the court held that under the Texas Tax Code, transferred tax liens maintain a "special priority status" superior to unperfected adverse possession claims. The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"To protect your filings against a pro se litigant's claim of non-receipt, ensure the party's email address is memorialized in the withdrawal order of their former counsel. If you are the party claiming non-receipt, you must provide affirmative evidence—such as affidavits or IT logs—to overcome the Rule 21a presumption; mere allegations are legally insufficient."
Allen v. State
COA14
In a human trafficking appeal with significant procedural implications for family law litigators, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed issues regarding evidence suppression, impeachment by prior convictions, and jury unanimity. The defendant argued the trial court failed to rule on a second motion to suppress and erred in its evidentiary and jury charge rulings. The appellate court analyzed the record under the principle that a signed written order controls over oral announcements and evaluated the jury charge under the 'Almanza' egregious harm standard. The court held that the written order constituted a valid ruling, the admission of prior convictions for impeachment was within the trial court's discretion, and the lack of a unanimity instruction did not cause egregious harm, ultimately affirming the conviction.
Litigation Takeaway
"To preserve error for appeal, always ensure a signed written order is entered, as it overrides ambiguous oral statements from the bench; furthermore, in credibility-heavy trials like SAPCRs or protective order hearings, litigators must proactively request specific jury instructions or findings of fact to avoid the near-insurmountable 'egregious harm' standard for unpreserved charge errors."
Kappler v. State
COA14
Kappler appealed a felony DWI conviction, claiming the evidence was insufficient because of a three-hour delay between the crash and her blood draw, alongside potential lab contamination from a gas leak. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the state's "stacked proof," which included civilian observations of her unsteady gait, officer notes on slurred speech and field sobriety test failures, and a 0.102 BAC result. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that a rational jury could find intoxication under both impairment and per se theories, and that technical challenges to testing reliability generally go to the weight of the evidence rather than its legal sufficiency.
Litigation Takeaway
"When alleging alcohol impairment in custody or divorce proceedings, build a "mosaic of evidence" by combining behavioral observations, inconsistent statements, and physical clues with chemical testing; this layered approach helps defeat "delay" or "technicality" defenses that attempt to isolate and discredit a single piece of evidence."
Kapasi v. Villarreal
COA14
In this case, Ashrafi Kapasi sued Stalina Villarreal over a motor vehicle accident. Villarreal eventually filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment under Rule 166a(i), asserting Kapasi lacked evidence for essential elements of the claims. Kapasi did not file a response but argued that her prior request for a jury trial and payment of the jury fee preserved her right to a trial. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed Rule 166a(i) and the Texas Constitution, determining that the right to a jury trial is not absolute but contingent upon the existence of a material fact issue. The court held that a trial court must grant a no-evidence motion for summary judgment if the non-movant fails to produce evidence raising a genuine issue of fact, regardless of a pending jury demand.
Litigation Takeaway
"A jury demand is not a shield against summary judgment; failing to file a timely, evidence-backed response to a no-evidence motion will result in the mandatory dismissal of your claims, even if you have paid for a jury."
In Re Glen Edward Williams
COA14
In this Houston family law matter, Glen Edward Williams sought a writ of mandamus to force a trial court to rule on his 'Special Appearance'—a motion challenging whether the court had personal jurisdiction over him. After waiting approximately two months without a decision, Williams argued the court was failing its duty to rule. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied the request, holding that a trial court is allowed a 'reasonable time' to rule based on the circumstances of the case. The court emphasized that Williams failed to provide a record showing he had properly brought the motion to the trial judge's attention or that the judge had expressly refused to act. Consequently, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion that would justify the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.
Litigation Takeaway
"Filing a motion is only the first step; you must actively bring it to the judge's attention and document those efforts. Appellate courts will rarely intervene in a trial court's schedule unless you can prove a clear refusal to act after a significant and unreasonable delay—and in busy jurisdictions like Harris County, a two-month wait is generally not enough to trigger appellate relief."
Rehab Squad General Contractors, LLC v. Phamily Capital Partners, LLC and Derek Pham
COA05
In this contract and "alter ego" dispute, the Dallas Court of Appeals addressed whether a plaintiff preserved its right to appeal the omission of a jury question regarding piercing the corporate veil. Despite filing a trial brief arguing the sufficiency of the evidence, the plaintiff failed to tender a written, "substantially correct" question as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 278. The court analyzed the procedural requirements for preservation of error, concluding that oral objections and trial briefs regarding the evidence cannot substitute for the formal written tender of a requested jury question. The court held that the issue was waived on appeal, emphasizing that even compressed trial timelines do not excuse the proponent's burden to provide specific charge language to the trial court.
Litigation Takeaway
"A trial brief is not a substitute for a formal jury charge request; to preserve a theory of recovery for appeal, you must physically tender the specific, "substantially correct" written question to the trial judge."
Castillo v. State
COA07
In a case involving aggravated assault of a child, the defendant challenged the reliability of a burn expert's testimony regarding the timing of the injury. The trial court admitted the testimony over an objection that the State 'failed to lay a proper predicate.' The Seventh Court of Appeals held that a 'predicate' objection is too general to preserve a Rule 702 reliability complaint for appeal, as it fails to specify whether the challenge concerns the expert's qualifications, the methodology, or the application of facts. Analyzing the merits in the alternative, the court found no abuse of discretion, ruling that the expert's extensive clinical experience provided a sufficient basis for his opinions and that gaps in scientific literature were matters for cross-examination rather than exclusion.
Litigation Takeaway
"A general 'lack of predicate' or 'foundation' objection will not preserve a Daubert/Robinson challenge to an expert's reliability; you must explicitly object under Rule 702 and identify the specific methodological gap or analytical defect to avoid waiving the issue for appeal."
In the Interest of C.G.
COA14
In this case, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed a trial court's decree terminating a father's parental rights while he was incarcerated. The Father challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the 'best interest' finding, arguing that his participation in prison-based parenting classes and future plans for employment as a barber should weigh in his favor. The court analyzed the conflict using the Holley factors, focusing on the Father's extensive history of violent criminal conduct—including offenses committed after he knew of the child's existence—and his lack of financial support. The court contrasted this with the child's strong bond with a stable caregiver (a Great Aunt). Ultimately, the court held that the Father’s history of instability and danger outweighed his limited rehabilitative efforts, affirming the termination decree.
Litigation Takeaway
"While incarceration alone is not a sufficient ground for termination, a persistent pattern of violent criminal activity—particularly conduct occurring after a parent is aware of their child—is highly probative of future danger and serves as strong evidence that termination is in the child's best interest."
In the Matter of the Expunction of K.J.
COA08
After K.J. was indicted for causing injury to a child, the State dismissed the charges due to 'insufficient evidence' and K.J.'s completion of a parenting class. K.J. subsequently sought an expunction of the records. The El Paso Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of the expunction, clarifying that 'insufficient evidence' is not legally equivalent to the statutory requirements of 'mistake, false information, or lack of probable cause' needed for an expunction. The court held that because expunction is a statutory privilege and not an equitable right, the petitioner failed to meet the strict evidentiary burden required to scrub the criminal record.
Litigation Takeaway
"A criminal dismissal for 'insufficient evidence' does not automatically entitle a party to an expunction. For family law practitioners, this means that unless an opponent can prove factual innocence or mistake in an expunction hearing, their history of arrests or indictments for child abuse remains accessible and admissible for 'best interest' analyses in custody disputes."
Bess v. State
COA01
Kendrick Bess appealed his conviction for aggravated assault of a family member, asserting that the trial judge's active participation—including questioning witnesses and summarizing testimony—deprived him of a fair trial and demonstrated judicial bias. The First Court of Appeals first addressed whether the appeal was 'multifarious' for combining multiple legal theories into one point of error, concluding that appellate courts have the discretion to review such issues in the interest of justice if the complaint is discernable. On the merits, the court analyzed the judge's conduct under the 'Liteky' standard, finding that the interventions were intended for clarification and courtroom administration rather than advocacy. The court held that a judge's active role does not violate due process unless it reveals such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.
Litigation Takeaway
"Trial judges are permitted wide latitude to question witnesses and manage their courtrooms; to successfully challenge a judge's impartiality on appeal, a party must show that the judge’s actions revealed deep-seated favoritism or extrajudicial bias rather than mere impatience or a desire for clarification."