Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
786 opinions found
In re Steven Broomfield and Lisa Broomfield
COA06
Relators moved a child to Smith County in violation of a geographic restriction issued in a Panola County SAPCR order. After six months, they moved for a mandatory venue transfer to Smith County under Texas Family Code Section 155.201. The court analyzed whether a county where residency is established via a violation of a court order constitutes a 'proper county' for transfer. The court held that the mandatory transfer provision is not triggered by unauthorized residency, and the trial court of continuing exclusive jurisdiction retains authority to deny the transfer and enforce its orders through contempt.
Litigation Takeaway
"Violating a geographic restriction to establish residency in a new county will not trigger a mandatory venue transfer; a court will not reward 'venue shopping' or 'self-help' that occurs in direct defiance of a standing court order."
In re the Commitment of Rufino Coronado
COA05
The State sought the civil commitment of Rufino Coronado as a sexually violent predator. At trial, the State's expert psychologist testified that Coronado had a behavioral abnormality, basing her opinion in part on a prior evaluation conducted by a non-testifying psychologist. Coronado objected, arguing the prior evaluator's findings were inadmissible hearsay. The Dallas Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rules of Evidence 703 and 705, which permit experts to rely on and disclose inadmissible facts or data if they are of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the specific field. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony because the expert performed her own independent evaluation and used the prior report as a standard clinical "building block" rather than offering the report itself as substantive evidence.
Litigation Takeaway
"To introduce influential third-party data or prior evaluations without calling the original source, have your testifying expert integrate those materials into their own independent assessment. By establishing that such records are 'reasonably relied upon' in the expert's field under TRE 703, you can disclose the basis of the opinion to the factfinder, though you should be prepared for a Rule 705(d) limiting instruction to prevent the hearsay from being treated as substantive truth."
Riley v. State
COA13
In Riley v. State, an ex-husband was convicted of "interception" under the Texas wiretap statute for accessing his ex-wife's stored voicemails using a known passcode without her consent. On appeal, the defendant argued that an "interception" can only occur if the communication is captured contemporaneously during transmission, rather than after it has been stored. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals rejected this narrow construction, analyzing Texas Penal Code § 16.02 and concluding that the statute does not require contemporaneous acquisition. The court held that unauthorized access to stored electronic or wire communications, including voicemails, constitutes a criminal interception.
Litigation Takeaway
""Snooping" into an ex-spouse's digital life is more than a credibility issue—it is a potential felony. Accessing stored voicemails or accounts without permission constitutes criminal "interception" in Texas, providing family law litigants with powerful leverage to secure protective orders, exclusive use of devices, and evidence of coercive control."
Magdaleno-Garcia v. State
COA07
The Appellant challenged twenty-five convictions for sexual assault and prohibited sexual conduct, arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient because the victims provided generalized testimony about a high volume of abuse—hundreds of instances over two years—rather than identifying specific dates for each individual count. The Seventh Court of Appeals analyzed the conflict by distinguishing between evidentiary sufficiency and jury unanimity requirements. The court applied a 'mathematical' approach, determining that if the described frequency (e.g., 'once or twice a week') within a specific timeframe establishes that the conduct occurred at least as many times as there are counts, the evidence is legally sufficient. The court held that the inability to distinguish which specific act supports which specific count is a jury charge issue, not a sufficiency issue, and affirmed the convictions.
Litigation Takeaway
"To establish a history of family violence or abuse, you do not need to prove the exact date of every incident; establishing a 'mathematical' pattern through a clear start date, end date, and consistent frequency is legally sufficient to support multiple findings of fact."
In Re Gregory Lynn Allison
COA06
In In re Gregory Lynn Allison, a relator sought a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to rule on motions filed less than three weeks earlier. The relator failed to provide a certified or sworn record, submitting only handwritten copies of his motions. The Sixth Court of Appeals analyzed whether a nineteen-day delay constituted an "unreasonable" period of time for a court to rule and whether the relator's pro se status excused procedural deficiencies under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court held that a delay of less than three weeks is insufficient to establish a failure to perform a ministerial duty and denied the petition, noting that strict compliance with record requirements (TRAP 52.3 and 52.7) is mandatory regardless of a party's indigency.
Litigation Takeaway
"Patience and procedural precision are mandatory for mandamus relief; a three-week delay in a trial court's ruling is legally insufficient to justify appellate intervention, and failure to provide a certified or sworn record will result in summary denial."
In re John Henry Garber
COA06
In this original proceeding, the Relator sought a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to rule on motions pending in three separate cases. The Sixth Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of whether the trial court's inaction constituted an abuse of discretion because the Relator failed to include the specific, sworn certification required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(k). Analyzing the case under strict procedural standards and Texas Supreme Court precedent, the court determined that technical compliance with Rule 52 is a mandatory prerequisite for seeking extraordinary relief. The court held that the petition must be summarily denied due to the fatal absence of the required verification that the factual statements were supported by competent evidence in the record.
Litigation Takeaway
"Technical precision is not optional in mandamus practice. Failing to include the exact verbatim certification required by TRAP 52.3(k) will result in a summary denial of your petition, regardless of the merits. In high-stakes family law disputes, always perform a technical audit of your filings to ensure strict compliance and avoid unnecessary delays or potential malpractice claims."
S&B Engineers & Constructors, Ltd. and Zurich American Insurance Company v. Scallon Controls, Inc.
SCOTX
In S&B Engineers & Constructors v. Scallon Controls, the Supreme Court of Texas addressed whether a party who voluntarily settles a lawsuit loses their right to seek reimbursement (indemnity) from another party under a contract. The conflict arose when a contractor settled claims with injured workers and then sought to recover a proportional share of that settlement from a subcontractor based on their written agreement. The lower court ruled that the settlement extinguished the right to indemnity, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision. The Court analyzed that Texas public policy favors the freedom of contract and the allocation of risk. It held that a voluntary settlement does not bar a contractual indemnity claim, provided the settling party can prove the settlement was reasonable, made in good faith, and that the underlying liability was attributable to the other party.
Litigation Takeaway
"A voluntary settlement is not a 'get out of jail free' card for an indemnitor. If you settle a debt or lawsuit that your ex-spouse was contractually obligated to pay under a divorce decree or MSA, you do not waive your right to reimbursement. As long as your settlement was reasonable and the debt belonged to them, you can still enforce your right to be made whole."
In re Arianna Victoria Law
COA02
Relator Arianna Victoria Law sought habeas corpus relief after being jailed for failing to pay child support, following a motion to revoke her community supervision. She argued that the underlying motion was legally deficient and that her due process rights were violated because the trial court allegedly failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or provide a reporter's record. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed the petition and found that Law failed to provide a sufficient record—consisting only of the contempt and commitment orders—to prove her claims. The court clarified that a sworn petition is not evidence and that the Relator had misidentified the applicable sections of the Texas Family Code. Consequently, the court denied the petition, holding that Law failed to carry her burden of providing a record sufficient to establish a right to relief.
Litigation Takeaway
"In habeas corpus and other original proceedings, the "record is king." A sworn petition is not evidence; if you are alleging a denial of due process or a lack of an evidentiary hearing, you must provide a comprehensive record—including motions, all underlying orders, and a reporter’s record (or proof that one was requested and denied)—to enable appellate review."
In re Christopher Vickers
COA13
In a dispute over child conservatorship and possession, Christopher Vickers sought a writ of mandamus to overturn trial court orders that modified his children's primary residence, claiming he was not provided proper notice of the proceedings. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling that Vickers failed to provide a sufficient record to prove a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court. The court further noted that Vickers did not demonstrate why a standard appeal following a final judgment would be an inadequate remedy to address his due process concerns.
Litigation Takeaway
"Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that requires an impeccable trial court record; if the appellate record is ambiguous or the harm can be addressed through a standard appeal, the court will likely deny relief."
In re Christopher Vickers
COA13
Christopher Vickers petitioned for a writ of mandamus to overturn a trial court’s order modifying child conservatorship and the right to designate primary residence, claiming he received no notice of the proceedings. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the petition under the established mandamus standard, which requires the relator to prove both a clear abuse of discretion and the lack of an adequate remedy by ordinary appeal. The court held that Vickers failed to provide an appellate record sufficient to support his claims or demonstrate why a standard appeal would be an inadequate remedy, ultimately denying the petition and lifting a previously imposed stay.
Litigation Takeaway
"Alleging a lack of notice or an abuse of discretion is insufficient to secure mandamus relief in a custody dispute; the relator must provide a comprehensive, authenticated record and specifically prove that the legal error cannot be corrected through a standard post-judgment appeal."