Opinion Library

In Re Action Car Rental, L.L.C.

COA13

Action Car Rental, L.L.C. sought a writ of mandamus after a trial court denied its motion for summary judgment, which was based on a federal defense under the Graves Amendment. However, the Relator's petition and appellate record contained several procedural deficiencies. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals directed the Relator to amend its filings to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4 and 52.3, but the Relator failed to do so. The court analyzed the case by emphasizing that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and the burden rests entirely on the relator to provide a compliant record. Consequently, the court held that the failure to cure procedural defects and provide a certified record is sufficient grounds to deny the petition without ever reaching the legal merits of the case.

Litigation Takeaway

"In mandamus proceedings, procedural compliance is as critical as substantive law; failing to provide a certified record or ignoring a court's directive to cure filing defects will result in the summary denial of your petition, regardless of how strong your underlying legal argument may be."

Divorce

Charles Austin v. Extruded Aluminum Corp.

COA01

In this case, a plaintiff injured in a motor vehicle accident at a Texas worksite attempted to sue a Michigan-based manufacturer, arguing the company was subject to Texas jurisdiction because its employees had attended on-site safety training. The First Court of Appeals analyzed whether these contacts met the "nexus" requirement for specific jurisdiction—meaning the claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant's purposeful activities in the state. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the company, holding that repairing defective products (the company's purpose in Texas) was not the "operative fact" of a vehicle accident, and incidental safety training did not create a substantial enough connection to satisfy due process.

Litigation Takeaway

"Physical presence in Texas does not automatically equal jurisdiction; to successfully join an out-of-state entity or spouse to a lawsuit, the 'operative facts' of your specific claim must be directly tied to their purposeful activities within the state."

Child Custody

Robinson v. State

COA01

In Robinson v. State, a defendant convicted of online solicitation of a minor argued he was entitled to a 'within-three-years' statutory defense because the undercover officer he solicited was an adult close to his own age. The First Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Penal Code § 33.021, which defines a 'minor' to include individuals the actor believes to be under 17. The court held that the applicability of the age-gap defense is determined by the defendant's subjective belief regarding the victim's age—the 'persona'—rather than the officer's actual biological age. Because the defendant believed he was soliciting a 15-year-old, he was not entitled to the defense.

Litigation Takeaway

"A parent's intent to solicit a minor is the legally operative fact in determining the risk they pose to children; they cannot use the 'actual age' of an undercover officer as a technicality to minimize their conduct or protect their custody rights in family court."

Termination of Parental Rights

In re K.N., M.N., and M.N., Children

COA02

The Department of Family and Protective Services sought to terminate the parental rights of a mother and father following a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and unlivable home conditions. On appeal, the parents challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the trial court's endangerment findings, and the mother argued her due process rights were violated when the trial proceeded in the absence of a witness. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, analyzing the parents' pattern of conduct under Texas Family Code \u00a7 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). The court held that persistent domestic violence and chronic substance abuse constitute an endangering environment, and further ruled that the mother failed to preserve her due process claim because she did not file a sworn motion for continuance as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 251.

Litigation Takeaway

"Endangerment findings are often based on a cumulative pattern of behavior, such as the intersection of domestic violence and substance abuse, rather than a single incident. Furthermore, trial counsel must strictly adhere to procedural requirements for missing witnesses; a general due process objection will not preserve error on appeal without a written, sworn motion for continuance and a formal offer of proof regarding the witness's expected testimony."

Termination of Parental Rights

In the Interest of C.B., a Child

COA02

In this parental termination case, the Mother filed her notice of appeal one day after the 20-day deadline required for accelerated appeals. Although the filing occurred within the 15-day grace period—which typically triggers an 'implied motion' for an extension—the Court of Appeals issued a jurisdictional inquiry requesting a reasonable explanation for the delay. The Mother failed to respond to the court's inquiry. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3 and 10.5(b), concluding that while an extension can be granted for late filings within the grace period, the appellant still bears the burden of providing a reasonable justification. Because the Mother offered no explanation, the court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

Litigation Takeaway

"In accelerated family law appeals, the 20-day filing deadline is strictly enforced and is not extended by motions for a new trial. If you miss the deadline but file within the 15-day grace period, you must proactively file a motion—or respond to court inquiries—with a 'reasonable explanation' for the delay; failing to justify the tardiness will result in a jurisdictional dismissal."

Budko v. Mukhar

COA01

After initiating an appeal, Appellant Angelina Budko requested a period of abatement to pursue mediation. Following the abatement, and before the appellate court issued an opinion on the merits, Budko filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the request under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), which allows for dismissal upon an appellant's motion if no other party has filed a notice of appeal. The court held that because the procedural requirements were met and no opinion had been rendered, the appeal would be reinstated and dismissed.

Litigation Takeaway

"Utilize the 'abatement for mediation' strategy as a strategic off-ramp in appellate litigation. By securing an abatement and subsequent voluntary dismissal under TRAP 42.1(a)(1) before an opinion is issued, practitioners can finalize settlements reached in mediation while avoiding the risk of an adverse appellate ruling or unfavorable precedent."

In Re D.B.

COA01

In a mandamus proceeding arising from a contempt order in a child-related lawsuit, Relator D.B. submitted filings containing sensitive information, such as unredacted minor names and birth dates, in violation of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9. The First Court of Appeals struck the non-compliant documents and provided a seven-day window for the Relator to file redacted versions. Instead of curing the deficiencies, the Relator filed a 'Request to Withdraw Mandamus.' The court analyzed the request as a motion for voluntary dismissal and held that the proceeding should be dismissed without prejudice, effectively ending the appellate challenge due to procedural non-compliance and the Relator's subsequent abandonment of the petition.

Litigation Takeaway

"Strict compliance with privacy rules is not optional; failing to redact sensitive information like children's names and birth dates under TRAP 9.9 can lead to your appellate filings being struck and your case being dismissed before the court ever hears the merits."

In Re A.B., Relator

COA01

In this suit to modify the parent-child relationship (SAPCR), the Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate or modify the trial court's temporary orders. The First Court of Appeals abated the proceeding to allow the parties to attend mediation. After reaching a full settlement, the Relator filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the petition. The court analyzed the case under the doctrine of mootness, determining that because the parties had resolved their underlying dispute, there was no longer a justiciable controversy for the court to decide. The court granted the motion, reinstated the case from abatement, and dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus.

Litigation Takeaway

"A mandamus petition is a powerful strategic tool in family law that can provide the leverage necessary to settle a case. When an appellate court abates a mandamus proceeding for mediation, practitioners should treat the pending petition as a catalyst for negotiation. If a settlement is reached, counsel must promptly file an unopposed motion to dismiss the appellate proceeding to clear the docket and finalize the resolution."

Marital Agreements

MacIvor v. Zuehl Airport Flying Community Owners Association, Inc.

COA06

In a dispute over property assessments, a homeowners association sought to compel arbitration based on a 2015 resolution that purportedly amended the subdivision's covenants. The property owner challenged the existence of the agreement, arguing the amendment was never validly adopted. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order compelling arbitration, holding that the party moving for arbitration bears the initial evidentiary burden to prove the existence of a valid agreement under traditional contract principles. Because the association failed to provide evidence that the amendment was legally executed, the "presumption" favoring arbitration was never triggered, and the resulting arbitration award was declared void.

Litigation Takeaway

"The "strong policy favoring arbitration" does not excuse a party from proving that a contract actually exists. If a spouse or business partner attempts to enforce an arbitration clause in a modified agreement, trust amendment, or draft settlement, you can block the referral to arbitration by challenging the legal formation of that document. The court must confirm the agreement's existence before the arbitrator can take over."

Evidence

Smith v. State

COA14

In Smith v. State, the defendant challenged his convictions for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child, arguing that the evidence was insufficient because the child complainant used colloquial terms rather than proving 'penetration' and partially recanted at trial. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the Texas Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, determining that the state is only required to prove 'contact' rather than 'penetration' for the charged offenses. The court held that a child's testimony regarding anatomical placement and physical pain allows a jury to rationally infer contact, and that 'outcry' hearsay testimony remains admissible under Article 38.072 even if the child contradicts those statements at trial. The court affirmed the convictions, ruling that such contradictions go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.

Litigation Takeaway

"To prove sexual abuse in a legal proceeding, you do not need medical evidence of penetration or clinical terminology from the child; testimony establishing 'contact' is sufficient. Furthermore, a child’s trial-day recantation or hesitation does not bar the admission of their initial, spontaneous outcry statements, which can be used to sustain findings of abuse even in the absence of physical trauma."