Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
786 opinions found
Davis v. State
COA09
In Davis v. State, a defendant challenged the warrantless seizure of his cell phone during a child sexual assault investigation, arguing the evidence obtained from a subsequent search warrant should be suppressed. The Ninth Court of Appeals analyzed the seizure under the Fourth Amendment's exigent circumstances exception, which allows warrantless action to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. The court found that because the defendant admitted to using the phone to communicate with the victim and had already deleted messages and blocked her, officers had both probable cause and a reasonable belief that evidence faced immediate destruction. The court held the warrantless seizure was permissible to preserve the status quo until a warrant could be obtained, affirming the denial of the motion to suppress.
Litigation Takeaway
"To secure immediate preservation of digital evidence in family violence or abuse cases, litigators should build a record of specific "deletion risk"—such as prior deletions or admissions of blocking contacts—to justify emergency relief or turnover orders under an exigent circumstances framework."
In the Interest of V.R.C.
COA05
In a high-stakes custody dispute, a mother lost all access to her child after revoking a settlement agreement on the morning of her trial. She argued that her due process rights were violated because she expected the trial to be postponed due to the settlement. However, the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that since the postponement was contingent on the settlement she chose to break, the trial court was right to proceed immediately. The court also found that the mother failed to properly challenge evidence against her because she made "shotgun" objections rather than specific legal arguments for each document. Ultimately, the court upheld the decree denying her access to the child based on evidence of untreated addiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"A "ready" announcement for trial remains binding even if a settlement is reached; if that settlement fails, you must be prepared to go to trial immediately. Furthermore, general objections to a group of exhibits are insufficient to preserve your rights for an appeal—each piece of evidence requires a specific, individual objection."
Howard v. Kimball
COA07
In Howard v. Kimball, the Seventh Court of Appeals addressed an "accidental finality" trap where a trial court order both denied a plea to the jurisdiction and included language stating the suit was "dismissed." To resolve this ambiguity, the appellate court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 27.2, abating the appeal and remanding the case to the trial court for clarification. Under the Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. standard, the court analyzed whether the order clearly and unequivocally disposed of all parties and claims. Once the trial court issued amended orders explicitly stating the case would "continue to trial," the appellate court held that the order was interlocutory and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"To avoid "accidental finality" caused by clerical or drafting errors, always include explicit language in non-final orders stating that the matter remains on the active docket and "shall continue to trial." If you encounter an ambiguous order that inadvertently triggers an appeal, use a TRAP 27.2 abatement as a procedural tool to secure a trial court clarification and return the case to the active docket."
In Re Michelle Chase
COA05
In a Dallas County Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR), Michelle Chase challenged the trial court's jurisdiction. After her plea was denied, she sought a writ of mandamus from the Fifth Court of Appeals to compel a dismissal. The appellate court denied the request, finding that Chase failed to meet the high 'Prudential' standard: proving a clear abuse of discretion and showing that a regular appeal would not provide an adequate remedy. Additionally, the court struck her petition and record because they contained unredacted sensitive information—including Social Security numbers and children's names—violating Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9.
Litigation Takeaway
"Seeking emergency mandamus relief for jurisdictional disputes is an uphill battle that rarely bypasses the standard appeal process; more importantly, a failure to strictly redact a child's sensitive information can result in the court striking your filings and delaying your case."
Lamar Advantage Outdoor Co., L.P. v. LaCore Enterprises, LLC, et al.
COA05
A billboard lessee (Lamar) sued a property owner and a third-party purchaser for breach of contract and conversion after the owner sold the property without providing a contractually mandated 'desire to sell' notice. This notice was a condition precedent to the lessee's 30-day window to exercise an option for a perpetual easement. The Dallas Court of Appeals analyzed the lease's plain language and determined that because the lessor failed to provide the required notice, the lessee's exercise window never expired. The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment, holding that genuine issues of material fact regarding the breach and the lessee's right to possession precluded judgment as a matter of law.
Litigation Takeaway
"In complex property divisions, practitioners must perform exhaustive due diligence for 'poison pill' clauses like rights of first refusal or purchase options; a failure to provide mandated notice to third-party lessees during a post-divorce sale or transfer can lead to litigation that clouds the title and strips the community asset of its value."
T.L.H. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
COA03
In this case, a father (Timothy) appealed the trial court's order terminating his parental rights. His court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, stating that the appeal was frivolous and lacked merit. The Third Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record, specifically analyzing the trial court's endangerment findings under Subsections (D) and (E) as mandated by the 'In re N.G.' standard. The court also addressed the duration of appointed counsel's obligations under 'In re P.M.' The court held that the appeal was indeed frivolous, affirmed the termination order, and clarified that counsel's duties extend through the filing of a potential petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court.
Litigation Takeaway
"In parental termination appeals, an Anders brief does not trigger an automatic withdrawal; the appellate court must still perform a rigorous independent review of endangerment findings, and appointed counsel remains obligated to represent the client through the Texas Supreme Court level."
Camacho v. State
COA07
Celia Camacho appealed the adjudication of her guilt for theft, arguing that she did not 'appropriate' furniture and appliances because her husband was the one who physically moved them and she lacked a key to the residence where they were found. The Amarillo Court of Appeals analyzed whether 'appropriation' under the Texas Penal Code requires physical movement or exclusive possession. The court held that under the preponderance of the evidence standard, 'control' is a functional concept that does not require physical labor or exclusive access. Because Camacho was the primary negotiator for the property and her personal effects and social media activity linked her to the new location, the court affirmed that she exercised 'joint possession' and control over the stolen goods.
Litigation Takeaway
"Exclusive physical possession is not required to prove control over an asset; litigators can use circumstantial 'affirmative links'—such as personal items, social media posts, and prior negotiations—to legally connect a spouse to hidden or transferred property held by third parties."
Strickland v. State
COA07
In Strickland v. State, a trial court attempted to stack a defendant's sentences by 'judicially noticing' prior convictions from a different term of court. The Seventh Court of Appeals held that judicial notice cannot be used as a shortcut to prove matters outside the operative record or term of court. Instead, the proponent must introduce competent evidence and establish a link between the party and the records. Although the trial court erred in its method, the appellate court affirmed the sentence because the State introduced the actual judgments containing matching identifiers (such as SID and Social Security numbers), which provided sufficient proof of the prior convictions.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not rely on a judge 'knowing the file' or taking judicial notice of records from other cases or prior terms; to survive appeal, you must formally introduce certified records and provide specific testimony or identifiers that link those documents to the party."
Lomerson v. Lyle Reid & Associates, L.L.C.
COA07
In a property damage dispute involving complex water drainage issues, the plaintiff failed to timely designate expert witnesses required to prove causation. The defendants moved for a no-evidence summary judgment, arguing that without admissible expert testimony, the plaintiff could not meet his burden of proof. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6, which mandates the automatic exclusion of untimely evidence unless the proponent establishes 'good cause' or a 'lack of unfair surprise or prejudice.' The court held that the plaintiff's claim of 'mistake' or counsel inadvertence did not satisfy these exceptions. Because expert testimony was necessary for the technical issue of causation, the court affirmed the summary judgment, effectively dismissing the case.
Litigation Takeaway
"Missing an expert designation deadline is more than a discovery hiccup—it is a potential case-killer. Under TRCP 193.6, late-filed experts are automatically excluded from consideration at the summary judgment stage unless you can prove a specific legal exception. In family law matters involving business valuations, property tracing, or custody evaluations, failing to adhere to the scheduling order can result in a 'no-evidence' judgment that ends your claim before trial."
In re Amrock, LLC
COA04
Relator Amrock, LLC filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate a trial court's order that required the production of documents the Relator claimed were privileged. The San Antonio Court of Appeals analyzed the petition under Texas mandamus standards, which require the relator to provide a record sufficient to establish an abuse of discretion. Because the Relator failed to include the actual documents reviewed in camera by the trial court in the appellate record, the court held it was legally impossible to determine if the trial court's ruling was arbitrary or unreasonable. Consequently, the court denied the petition and lifted the stay on the discovery order.
Litigation Takeaway
"When seeking mandamus relief to protect privileged documents, you must ensure the documents reviewed in camera are properly sealed and included in the appellate record; otherwise, the appellate court cannot find an abuse of discretion and will deny the petition."