Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
786 opinions found
In re John F. Ross
COA05
In 'In re John F. Ross', the Relator sought mandamus relief and emergency stays regarding orders from a Collin County district court. However, the Relator submitted a record that was neither sworn nor certified and contained unredacted sensitive data, such as social security numbers and birth dates. The Fifth Court of Appeals strictly applied Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52 and 9.9, concluding that a court cannot grant extraordinary relief based on an unauthenticated record. Consequently, the court denied the petition and struck the entire filing to protect party privacy, rendering all emergency motions moot without ever reaching the substantive merits of the case.
Litigation Takeaway
"In appellate litigation, procedural compliance is as important as the merits of your argument; failing to properly authenticate a record or redact sensitive private information will lead to an immediate dismissal, regardless of the urgency of the underlying family law dispute."
In the Interest of N.L.
COA09
After a trial court terminated a mother's parental rights based on findings of endangerment and failure to complete a service plan, her court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief stating the appeal lacked merit. The Ninth Court of Appeals conducted an independent, de novo review of the record to ensure the trial court's findings under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b) were supported by clear and convincing evidence. The court concluded that the evidence regarding the statutory predicates and the child's best interest was sufficient and affirmed the termination order, finding no arguable grounds for appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"Building a trial record with 'clean' evidence—particularly regarding statutory endangerment grounds—makes a termination order significantly more difficult to overturn. The Anders protocol provides a mechanism for the finality of these orders when a thorough appellate review confirms that no reversible error occurred at the trial level."
Valdez v. State
COA14
In Valdez v. State, a defendant challenged his conviction by arguing the trial court should not have included jury instructions on 'party' and 'conspirator' liability when the State's primary theory was that he acted alone as the principal. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the 'some evidence' threshold for jury instructions, noting that a jury, as the sole judge of witness credibility, is free to disbelieve portions of testimony—especially from biased 'insider' witnesses like a mother or lover. The court held that if a rational jury could find the defendant assisted in the offense even while doubting they were the primary actor, the court does not err by submitting multiple theories of liability.
Litigation Takeaway
"When litigating fraud on the community or the waste of assets, ensure your jury charge includes instructions on conspiracy and vicarious liability. By leveraging the legal standards for witness bias, you can prevent a spouse’s 'insider' witnesses from narrowing your legal theories, allowing the jury to find liability for a joint enterprise even if they disbelieve the witness's specific account of who performed the act."
In re Theresa Velez
COA01
In a long-running divorce proceeding, Theresa Velez filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate or modify temporary orders issued by the 507th District Court of Harris County. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the petition under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a), which requires the relator to prove the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal. The court held that Velez failed to meet this high evidentiary and legal burden, concluding that the trial court acted within its broad discretion in managing the marital estate and the parties' conduct during the litigation. Consequently, the court denied the request for extraordinary relief.
Litigation Takeaway
"Challenging temporary orders through mandamus is an uphill battle that requires more than just showing a trial judge "got it wrong." To succeed, you must demonstrate a total absence of evidence or a clear misapplication of the law, supported by a perfect appellate record including all transcripts and exhibits."
In the Matter of D. L. A.
COA01
In this juvenile delinquency matter, D.L.A. challenged a robbery adjudication, arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient to identify him as the perpetrator due to inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the case under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required by the Texas Family Code and Jackson v. Virginia, noting that the testimony of even a single eyewitness is legally sufficient to support a conviction. The court held that because the victims provided positive identifications and were corroborated by circumstantial evidence—specifically, D.L.A. being apprehended in a stolen vehicle containing the distinctive clothing and weapon described by the victims—the evidence was legally sufficient to support the trial court's finding of delinquent conduct.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas juvenile proceedings, the testimony of a single credible eyewitness is legally sufficient to sustain an adjudication; practitioners must focus on undermining identification reliability at the trial level because appellate courts will not re-weigh witness credibility or resolve evidentiary conflicts on appeal."
In Re Catherine Goodman
COA02
After the death of an individual with outstanding debts, a claimant filed a lawsuit in a Texas district court to recover funds after the estate administrator rejected their claim. However, Texas Estates Code Section 355.064(a) mandates that a claimant must file suit in the specific court of original probate jurisdiction where the estate is pending within 90 days of a rejection. The Second Court of Appeals held that filing in a court of general jurisdiction (like a district court) rather than the specific probate court failed to satisfy the statute. Because the 90-day window had closed, the claim was legally barred. The court granted mandamus relief, ordering the district court to dismiss the case because it had no basis in law.
Litigation Takeaway
"When pursuing an estate for unpaid child support, alimony, or property division, you must strictly adhere to the Texas Estates Code. If an estate administrator rejects your claim, you have exactly 90 days to file suit in the specific court handling the probate. Filing in the family court that issued your decree is a fatal error that will result in your claim being permanently barred once the 90-day deadline passes."
Cunningham v. Smith
COA02
In Cunningham v. Smith, an incarcerated litigant challenged the dismissal of his lawsuit for want of prosecution (DWOP) after he failed to appear at a scheduled dismissal hearing. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a, noting that while the litigant claimed he mailed a motion to retain, he failed to file a verified motion to reinstate after the case was dismissed. The court held that incarceration does not excuse a party from procedural requirements. Because the plaintiff bypassed the trial court and filed a notice of appeal instead of a motion to reinstate, he waived his due process complaints. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding no abuse of discretion.
Litigation Takeaway
"Incarceration is not a "get out of jail free" card for legal deadlines. If your case is dismissed while you are incarcerated, you must file a verified motion to reinstate in the trial court to preserve your right to appeal; filing a notice of appeal alone is insufficient to save your claims."
In re Jay W. Colvin III
COA01
In a dispute involving an arbitrator's subpoena for 'accountings' of real property transactions, the First Court of Appeals addressed whether such a request could force a party to create new financial records. The Relator argued that the order improperly required him to perform a forensic accounting service rather than simply produce documents. The court analyzed the language of the enforcement order, determining that 'accounting' was used as a noun referring to existing records already in the party’s possession and control. Ultimately, the court denied mandamus relief, holding that because discovery is limited to items already in existence, the order did not compel the creation of new work product, but rather the turnover of existing financial data.
Litigation Takeaway
"You cannot use a subpoena to force an opposing party to perform forensic work or create new financial reports for you. An 'accounting' request only compels the production of existing records; if you need a complex summary or tracing of assets for your divorce, you must obtain the raw data and have your own expert perform the analysis."
Morrison v. State
COA14
In Morrison v. State, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant "possessed" a firearm found in a vehicle he occupied but did not own. Despite the presence of another person's identification and a lack of fingerprint evidence, the court applied the "affirmative links" doctrine—analyzing factors such as the weapon's proximity to the defendant, its visibility in plain view, the defendant's flight from officers, and his recorded jailhouse admissions. The court held that the cumulative force of these links was legally sufficient to prove the defendant exercised care, custody, and control over the contraband.
Litigation Takeaway
"Physical ownership is not required to prove possession; legal "control" can be established through proximity and behavior. Family law litigants can use the "affirmative links" doctrine to hold a parent accountable for drugs or weapons in their environment, even if they claim the items belong to a third party."
Ellis v. State
COA14
Timothy Ray Ellis was convicted of felony murder following the death of his girlfriend’s intellectually disabled son, who was subjected to extreme isolation, malnutrition, and unauthorized physical restraint. On appeal, the court analyzed whether Ellis’s actions—including padlocking the refrigerator and performing makeshift surgery—constituted 'acts clearly dangerous to human life' during the commission of the felony of injury to a disabled individual. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the systematic neglect and physical dominion Ellis exercised were legally sufficient to support the murder charge and that technical errors in the jury instructions did not constitute egregious harm.
Litigation Takeaway
"'Coercive control'—evidenced by isolation, food restriction, and psychological dominance—is a recognized pattern of family violence that can be used to rebut custody presumptions and secure protective orders, even when physical assault is not the primary factor."