Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
786 opinions found
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."
Hickerson v. State
COA14
In Hickerson v. State, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was violated by the admission of a deceased victim's prior out-of-court statements. The court applied the "forfeiture by wrongdoing" doctrine, which provides an equitable exception to the Confrontation Clause when a defendant intentionally procures a witness's unavailability to prevent their testimony. Finding that Hickerson murdered his girlfriend to silence her regarding pending domestic violence charges, the court held that he waived his right to object to the admission of her prior statements, including her protective order application and police reports.
Litigation Takeaway
"A party who uses intimidation, threats, or violence to prevent a witness from testifying cannot later use the Confrontation Clause or hearsay rules to exclude that witness's prior statements. In family law cases involving domestic violence, this doctrine allows for the admission of critical evidence—such as prior affidavits, police reports, and protective order applications—even when the victim is too intimidated or otherwise unavailable to testify at trial."
Camden Design Group, Inc. v. Dialyspa Management Services, Inc.
COA01
In this case, a plaintiff sued for breach of a settlement agreement because the defendant paid via a standard check rather than 'good funds' and missed a technical waiver deadline. Although the plaintiff eventually received all the money owed, they continued the lawsuit to seek additional damages and attorney's fees. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Texas contract law, concluding that a 'technical breach' is not actionable unless the plaintiff can prove actual financial loss (pecuniary damage). Additionally, because the plaintiff’s initial demand for payment asked for a significantly higher 'new settlement' rather than the specific amount owed, the court applied the 'excessive demand doctrine' to deny the plaintiff's request for attorney's fees. The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant, essentially ruling 'no harm, no foul.'
Litigation Takeaway
"You cannot successfully sue for a technical breach of a settlement agreement (like a late payment or the wrong form of payment) if you eventually receive the money and suffer no actual financial harm. Moreover, be precise in your demand letters: asking for more than what is strictly owed under the agreement can 'weaponize' the excessive demand doctrine against you, causing you to lose your right to recover attorney's fees."
In the Interest of E.J., a Child
COA02
In this case, a mother’s parental rights were terminated by a trial court based on specific conduct-based grounds and the child's best interest. Her appointed appellate attorney filed an Anders brief, stating that after a thorough review, there were no valid legal grounds to overturn the decision. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals conducted its own independent review of the record and the mother's personal responses, concluding that the evidence supported the termination. While the court affirmed the termination order, it denied the attorney's motion to withdraw, holding that appointed counsel in termination cases must continue representation through potential Texas Supreme Court proceedings unless specific 'good cause' is shown.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas parental termination cases, an appointed attorney's duty doesn't end just because an appeal is considered 'frivolous.' Under the 'P.M. Mandate,' counsel must generally remain on the case through the Texas Supreme Court stage, providing parents with continuous legal representation throughout the entire appeals process."
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 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."
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 re Grayson Mill Operating, LLC
COA14
In a mandamus proceeding, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed whether a plaintiff could invoke the Texas residency exception to avoid a forum non conveniens dismissal by moving to the state after a claim accrued or a lawsuit was filed. The trial court had denied the motion to dismiss, viewing the residency determination as a flexible matter of first impression. However, the appellate court analyzed Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 71.051(e) and concluded that allowing post-incident relocation to satisfy the residency requirement would encourage "mischief" and blatant forum shopping. The court held that residency for the purpose of this statutory exception must be fixed at the time the cause of action accrued or when the suit was filed. Because the trial court misapplied the law, the appellate court conditionally granted mandamus relief.
Litigation Takeaway
"A party cannot "manufacture" Texas residency to subvert a forum non conveniens claim by moving to the state after a dispute has already begun. This ruling provides family law practitioners with a critical defense against "migratory spouses" who relocate to Texas mid-dispute to seek a more favorable jurisdictional or legal environment."
In the Matter of C.C., a Juvenile
COA10
In this juvenile law case, a minor (C.C.) challenged a court's jurisdiction to transfer his case to criminal court. He argued that his summons was not served at least two days before the hearing date listed on the document, violating Texas Family Code § 53.07(a). The Tenth Court of Appeals analyzed the statutory language and determined that the 'two-day' requirement refers to the date the hearing actually occurs, rather than the date originally printed on the summons. Because C.C. was served in June and the hearing did not take place until August, the court held the service was timely. The court also ruled that once jurisdiction is established through initial service, subsequent postponements do not require new summons and that appearing for a hearing without objection waives minor clerical errors.
Litigation Takeaway
"Service of process defects regarding hearing dates are often cured by time. If you are served late for an initial date but the hearing is postponed, the statutory window is measured against the actual hearing date. Critically, if you appear and announce 'ready' at a hearing, you waive the right to challenge these types of clerical or timing defects in the summons."
Carlos v. State
COA07
After Jayden Louis Carlos violated the terms of his community supervision for family violence offenses, his conditions were administratively modified to include a stay at an Intermediate Sanction Facility. Later, the State filed a formal motion to revoke his supervision based on the same conduct. Carlos argued that this violated the Double Jeopardy Clause and Due Process, claiming he was being punished twice for the same act. The Seventh Court of Appeals held that Double Jeopardy does not apply to revocation proceedings because they are meant to determine compliance with court orders rather than punish criminal conduct. Furthermore, because the initial modification was administrative and did not involve a formal hearing, the trial court maintained the authority to later revoke his supervision for the original violation.
Litigation Takeaway
"Administrative 'slaps on the wrist' by a probation department do not protect an abuser from future incarceration for the same conduct. In family law cases involving domestic violence, an administrative modification to an offender's probation is not a final settlement, and the threat of full revocation remains a significant factor for custody and safety considerations."