Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
786 opinions found
Howell Sand Company, Inc. v. Triple L Utilities, Inc.
COA07
The Amarillo Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit for want of prosecution (DWOP) following two distinct six-year periods of inactivity. The plaintiff attempted to avoid dismissal by announcing 'ready' for trial after receiving a notice of intent to dismiss and offered excuses of financial hardship and a mistaken belief that a defendant was in bankruptcy. The court analyzed the case using the 'entire history' test, determining that a trial court’s inherent power to dismiss is not curtailed by a last-minute announcement of readiness if the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable diligence throughout the life of the suit. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case or denying reinstatement, as the plaintiff's excuses were insufficient to prove the delay was not the result of conscious indifference.
Litigation Takeaway
"A last-minute 'announcement of ready' or a request for a trial setting will not save a stale case from dismissal for want of prosecution if there is a historical lack of diligence; furthermore, 'lack of funds' is not a legal justification for letting a family law modification or enforcement action languish for years."
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."
In the Interest of A.C., a Child
COA02
In this case, a mother attempted to appeal an order terminating her parental rights while the claims against the child's presumed father remained pending and unadjudicated. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed the order under the finality standard established in Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., determining that because the trial court explicitly recessed the father's portion of the case, the litigation had not concluded as to all parties. Despite the trial court's inclusion of "Mother Hubbard" language and statutory warnings regarding accelerated appeals, the court held that the order remained interlocutory and unappealable without a severance, resulting in a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never rely on boilerplate 'finality' language or Mother Hubbard clauses to create an appealable order in multi-party litigation. If any party's rights—such as an alleged or presumed father—remain unadjudicated, you must affirmatively move for a severance to trigger the appellate clock for a terminated parent, or your appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."
Pugh v. Winfield-Pugh
COA14
In a divorce proceeding, Barbara Winfield-Pugh sought to confirm a residence and a vehicle as her separate property. Although property possessed at the time of divorce is presumed to be community property, Barbara provided a 2005 deed and a 2013 title application showing she acquired the assets years before her 2021 marriage. The husband challenged this characterization but failed to appear at the evidentiary hearing to offer rebuttal evidence. The court analyzed the case under the 'Inception of Title' doctrine, which dictates that the character of property is determined at the moment a party first has a right to it. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that Barbara's uncontradicted testimony combined with pre-marital documentary evidence met the 'clear and convincing' standard required to prove separate property.
Litigation Takeaway
"To successfully protect separate property in a Texas divorce, 'Inception of Title' is the gold standard; maintaining original deeds, titles, or purchase agreements dated prior to the marriage provides the necessary documentary evidence to overcome the community property presumption, especially when the other spouse fails to provide contradictory evidence."
Anderson v. Altom
COA02
After a dispute at a Little League game, a board member called the police on a parent, suggesting the parent 'may' become a threat. The parent sued for defamation, but the defendants moved to dismiss the case under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that reporting potential criminal activity to law enforcement is a matter of public concern protected by the TCPA. The court held that speculating about future behavior—using language such as 'may' or 'might'—constitutes a non-actionable opinion or 'allusion' rather than a verifiable false statement of fact, which is a necessary element of a defamation claim.
Litigation Takeaway
"Reporting 'concerning behavior' or 'potential threats' to the police is generally protected from defamation lawsuits under the TCPA. To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must identify specific, verifiable false statements regarding past or present facts; mere speculation about future danger or 'allusions' to potential crimes are insufficient to support a defamation claim and can result in the plaintiff paying the defendant’s attorney’s fees."
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."
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."
Conover v. Conover
COA01
Two daughters sued their grandfather’s estate for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, alleging he failed to properly fund testamentary trusts created by their father's will, resulting in a $3.4 million discrepancy. The First Court of Appeals analyzed whether the fiduciary relationship between the trustee and beneficiaries tolled the four-year statute of limitations under the discovery rule. The court held that while a fiduciary relationship relaxes the duty to inquire, it does not eliminate the requirement of reasonable diligence; because the daughters had reached the age of majority and had access to financial advisors and account statements years before filing suit, their claims were barred by limitations. Furthermore, the court held that an exculpatory clause in the will protected the executor because the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of willful misconduct or gross negligence.
Litigation Takeaway
"A fiduciary relationship is not a license to ignore financial red flags. Beneficiaries of family trusts must exercise reasonable diligence once they reach adulthood and gain access to financial records; failure to investigate discrepancies in a timely manner will result in the statute of limitations barring recovery, even if self-dealing or mismanagement occurred."
Burns v. Standard Casualty Company
COA14
In Burns v. Standard Casualty Company, a group of homeowners and their law firm faced significant financial sanctions after filing a lawsuit that a court deemed 'groundless.' The dispute began when the homeowners claimed that a frozen pipe burst during a winter storm should be classified as an 'explosion' under their insurance policy to secure higher coverage. The trial court found no evidence to support this claim and ruled that the lawsuit was brought in bad faith. On appeal, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld the sanctions against the clients and their attorneys, largely because the lawyers failed to bring a court reporter to the hearing. Without a record of the evidence, the appellate court was forced to presume the trial judge's decision was correct.
Litigation Takeaway
"Baseless 'kitchen sink' legal claims can lead to expensive sanctions against both the client and the law firm. To protect your rights, always ensure a court reporter is present at hearings to record the evidence; otherwise, you lose your ability to challenge an unfair ruling on appeal."
Travis Park Apartments v. Perez
COA03
In Travis Park Apartments v. Perez, the Third Court of Appeals examined whether an attorney's general testimony regarding work performed was sufficient to support a fee award. After her detailed billing records were excluded due to a discovery error, the claimant’s attorney testified from memory, providing a total of 141.2 hours and describing broad categories of work like 'discovery' and 'trial prep.' The court analyzed this under the 'lodestar' method, which requires specific evidence of which tasks were performed, by whom, and when. The court held that general testimony is legally insufficient to support a fee award and reversed the judgment, remanding the case for a new trial on the issue of fees.
Litigation Takeaway
"To win and keep an attorney’s fee award in Texas, 'generalities' are not enough. If you cannot produce detailed billing records, you must be prepared to testify with granular precision about exactly how many hours were spent on specific individual tasks; providing aggregate totals for broad categories like 'litigation' or 'discovery' will likely lead to your fee award being overturned on appeal."