Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
786 opinions found
David and Rebecca Bowen v. Texas Fair Plan Association
COA01
In *Bowen v. Texas Fair Plan Association*, homeowners sued their insurance provider following a claim denial. The insurer filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, and the homeowners responded with affidavits from two experts. However, the homeowners had previously filed an amended expert designation that omitted these specific experts. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6, determining that an amended designation supersedes previous lists; by omitting the experts, the homeowners effectively de-designated them. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by striking the expert affidavits and affirming a take-nothing summary judgment, as the remaining evidence was unauthenticated and insufficient to create a fact issue.
Litigation Takeaway
"Always cross-reference your summary judgment evidence with your most recent Rule 194.2 expert designations; amending your witness list to "clean up" for trial can accidentally de-designate the experts you need to survive a no-evidence motion, resulting in the exclusion of their testimony."
Gerardo Solis III v. State
COA13
In *Solis v. State*, a defendant's counsel raised a suggestion of incompetency during a revocation hearing, supported by testimony of the defendant's mental regression and inability to assist in his defense. The trial court dismissed these concerns after a brief colloquy where the defendant answered basic questions clearly, concluding he was competent. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a trial court abuses its discretion when it weighs evidence of competency against evidence of incompetency during an informal inquiry. The court clarified that if there is 'some evidence' (more than a scintilla) from any source suggesting incompetency, the trial court must stay the proceedings and appoint an expert rather than relying on its own courtroom observations.
Litigation Takeaway
"A judge’s 'vibes check' or a party's polite courtroom demeanor cannot override evidence of mental incapacity; if there is even a scintilla of evidence that a party cannot rationally assist their counsel, the court is legally required to halt proceedings and appoint a competency expert."
In the Matter of the Marriage of Schrotel
COA10
After a final decree of divorce was entered, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal while simultaneously pursuing a motion for new trial in the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal, the trial court granted the motion for new trial, which effectively vacated the original divorce decree. The Appellant then filed a voluntary motion to dismiss the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1). The Tenth Court of Appeals analyzed the request and determined that because the underlying judgment had been vacated, the appeal was moot. The court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, allowing the litigation to continue in the trial court.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas family law, you must 'dual-track' your post-judgment strategy: file a notice of appeal to preserve your rights, but if you successfully secure a motion for new trial, promptly dismiss the now-moot appeal to avoid unnecessary legal fees and jurisdictional confusion."
Jerry Ramon v. Dulce Caridad Barajas Martinez
COA05
In this appellate procedural case, Jerry Ramon appealed a trial court dismissal but filed a brief that failed to meet the mandatory requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, specifically lacking record references and substantive legal arguments. Despite receiving a formal deficiency notice from the Dallas Court of Appeals, Ramon declined to amend his brief. The court analyzed the appeal under the "same standard" rule, which holds pro se litigants to the same procedural requirements as licensed attorneys to ensure fairness. The court held that because it cannot act as an advocate by searching the record for facts or legal theories to support an appellant's position, the appeal must be dismissed under Rule 42.3(c) for failure to comply with briefing standards.
Litigation Takeaway
"Pro se litigants do not get a 'free pass' on appellate rules; if an opposing party fails to include specific record citations or follow briefing orders, you can leverage procedural rules to have their appeal dismissed before even reaching the merits."
Brian Jacob Cole v. Lindsey Renee Cole
COA02
Brian Jacob Cole appealed a final divorce decree that awarded an investment property to his ex-wife and named her sole managing conservator, raising twelve issues including jurisdictional challenges and the denial of a jury trial. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals analyzed the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, which requires briefs to contain clear arguments with appropriate citations to the record and legal authority. The court held that because the appellant failed to provide adequate legal support, failed to preserve errors at trial, and lacked standing to challenge opposing counsel\'s withdrawal, all twelve issues were waived, and the trial court\'s judgment was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Pro se litigants are held to the same rigorous standards as licensed attorneys; representing yourself does not excuse a failure to follow procedural rules, and failing to properly cite the record or legal authority in an appeal will result in a total waiver of your claims."
Carroll v. Perla Dental
COA05
In Carroll v. Perla Dental, a plaintiff sued a dental provider in a Dallas County justice court for malpractice but failed to serve a mandatory expert report within the 120-day statutory window required by Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. After the justice court dismissed the case, the plaintiff appealed to a county court at law, arguing that the de novo appeal reset her filing deadlines and attempting to re-characterize her claims as a "breach of fiduciary duty" to avoid the expert report requirement. The Dallas Court of Appeals held that justice courts possess subject-matter jurisdiction over fiduciary duty and healthcare liability claims within their monetary limits. Crucially, the court ruled that a de novo appeal does not restart the expert report clock; a procedural default in the justice court remains fatal on appeal. Additionally, the court prevented the plaintiff from "label-switching," holding that claims based on professional services remain healthcare liability claims regardless of the terminology used in the pleadings.
Litigation Takeaway
"Justice courts are not "procedural-lite" forums; statutory expert report deadlines apply with full force and are not reset by a de novo appeal. If you fail to meet mandatory requirements in small claims court, an appeal will not save your case from dismissal and potential attorney's fee awards."
Williams v. McLeod
COA02
In Williams v. McLeod, an appellant's challenge to a trial court's ruling was dismissed after they failed to pay the required $205 filing fee or submit a mandatory docketing statement. Despite receiving multiple deficiency notices and an extension of time from the clerk's office, the appellant remained unresponsive. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 5, 32.1, and 42.3(c), which collectively authorize the involuntary dismissal of an appeal when an appellant fails to comply with administrative requirements or court orders. The court held that because the appellant failed to cure the identified deficiencies after being given ample opportunity, the appeal must be dismissed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Administrative precision is just as vital as legal strategy; missing a filing fee or a docketing statement can result in the immediate dismissal of your appeal before a judge ever reviews the merits of your case."
Sprueill v. Martinez
COA01
In Spruell v. Martinez, an appellant sought to challenge a family law order but failed to file her appellate brief by the required deadline. Despite receiving a formal warning from the First Court of Appeals that her case was at risk of dismissal, the appellant did not file the brief or request an extension. The court analyzed the case under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3, which allows for the involuntary dismissal of an appeal when a party fails to comply with procedural requirements or court notices. Because the appellant ignored the court's delinquency notice, the court held that the appeal must be dismissed for want of prosecution, effectively ending the case without reviewing the underlying legal merits.
Litigation Takeaway
"Appellate deadlines are strict and unforgiving; failing to file a brief or respond to a court's warning will result in the permanent loss of your right to appeal, regardless of the merits of your case."
Elborno v. State
COA14
In Elborno v. State, a defendant challenged his ten-year sentence because the trial court failed to offer him the right of allocution—the opportunity to personally plead for mercy or identify legal bars to sentencing. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed both the common law right to mitigation and the statutory requirements under Article 42.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that the common law right to allocution is forfeited if a defendant fails to object at the time of sentencing. Additionally, the court ruled that while the trial court is statutorily required to ask if there is any reason sentence should not be pronounced, the failure to do so is harmless error unless the defendant can show that a specific legal bar (pardon, incompetency, or mistaken identity) actually applied.
Litigation Takeaway
"In quasi-criminal family law enforcement proceedings, the right to speak in mitigation before being sentenced to jail is a 'use it or lose it' right; counsel must object immediately if a judge moves to pronounce confinement without providing an opportunity for allocution, or the issue is waived for appeal."
In re 7-Eleven, Inc.
COA13
In this case, a trial court failed to rule on a Rule 91a motion to dismiss "baseless claims" for several months following a hearing. The Relators sought mandamus relief to compel a ruling. The Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, noting that while its 45-day deadline for rulings is directory rather than jurisdictional, the rule's core purpose is the "early and speedy dismissal" of meritless litigation. The court found that because the motion was properly heard and the delay was objectively unreasonable, the trial court's inaction constituted an abuse of discretion. The court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to issue a ruling on the motion.
Litigation Takeaway
"Trial courts cannot use a 'pocket veto' to avoid ruling on Rule 91a motions to dismiss. If a judge refuses to rule on a motion to dismiss baseless claims within a reasonable time after a hearing, mandamus is an available tool to force a decision and prune frivolous 'tort-crossover' claims from family law litigation."