Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
786 opinions found
In The Interest of S.A.M. and C.J.M., Children
COA05
In a child custody appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeals dismissed the case after the appellant failed to comply with mandatory privacy and briefing rules. The court initially struck the appellant's brief because it contained 'sensitive data'—specifically the full names and birthdates of minor children—in violation of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9. Although the court granted the appellant a deadline to file a corrected, redacted brief, the appellant failed to respond or cure the defects. The court held that under Rule 38.9(a), dismissal was the proper sanction, emphasizing that protecting a minor's identity is a jurisdictional necessity that outweighs the court's usual patience for procedural errors.
Litigation Takeaway
"Protecting the privacy of children is a non-negotiable requirement in Texas family law appeals. Failing to redact sensitive information or ignoring a court's order to fix briefing errors can result in your appeal being dismissed before its merits are ever even considered."
In The Interest of N.U. and J.U., Children
COA05
In this SAPCR (Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship) appeal, the Fifth Court of Appeals addressed whether a case should be dismissed when an appellant fails to file a merits brief despite receiving a delinquency notice. After the appellant missed the initial filing deadline and ignored a formal ten-day warning from the clerk, the court analyzed the procedural requirements under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.8 and 42.3. The court held that because the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal or comply with court directives, the appeal must be dismissed for want of prosecution, effectively leaving the trial court's original order regarding the children in place.
Litigation Takeaway
"Appellate deadlines in family law cases are strictly enforced; failing to file a merits brief after receiving a delinquency notice will result in the immediate dismissal of your appeal and the permanent forfeiture of your right to challenge the trial court's ruling."
Jones v. Hanvey
COA05
In Jones v. Hanvey, parents sued three high school cheerleading coaches after their daughter developed a serious medical condition, Exertional Rhabdomyolysis, following a "punishment" workout. Although the coaches allegedly ignored a doctor's note and violated district policies regarding discipline, the Dallas Court of Appeals focused on whether the coaches were acting within the "scope of employment" under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The court held that because student discipline is a fundamental part of a coach's job, the coaches were immune from individual liability. The court reasoned that the nature of the conduct (discipline) matters more than whether the conduct was performed poorly or in violation of rules, effectively dismissing the claims against the individuals.
Litigation Takeaway
"Texas law provides a nearly impenetrable shield of immunity for school employees acting within their job duties, making it strategically better to use school policy violations as evidence in custody modifications rather than pursuing individual lawsuits against teachers or coaches."
In re Wood County Post No. 7523, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and Amy Davis
COA05
In this case, relators sought mandamus relief after a trial judge failed to rule on two no-evidence motions for summary judgment that had been pending for five months, despite an imminent trial date. The Dallas Court of Appeals analyzed the trial court’s ministerial duty to rule on motions within a reasonable time, applying a three-part test: the motion must be properly filed, a ruling must be expressly requested, and the court must fail to act within a reasonable period. The court determined that because the motions were not complex and the relators had formally requested a ruling a month before trial, the trial court's continued silence constituted an abuse of discretion. The court conditionally granted the writ, ordering the trial judge to issue written rulings on the pending motions within twenty days.
Litigation Takeaway
"To overcome a "pocket veto" by a trial judge, practitioners must proactively create a record of the court's refusal to rule by filing a formal written request for a ruling after a reasonable time has passed. Mandamus is a viable tool to compel a judge to act on dispositive motions before trial, ensuring that clients are not forced to litigate meritless claims or coerced into settlements due to judicial inertia."
In re Anita Hutchings
COA05
Relator Anita Hutchings filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Dallas Court of Appeals seeking to compel a trial court to enter a specific order. The Court denied the petition without ever reaching the merits because the Relator failed to include the verbatim certification language required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(k). The Court analyzed the filing under a "strict compliance" doctrine, reaffirming that any deviation from the 'magic words' mandated by the rules is a fatal defect that prevents the court from considering the underlying legal issues.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Dallas mandamus practice, procedural form is just as important as substantive merit; you must ensure your petition uses the exact, verbatim certification language required by Rule 52.3(k), as the Fifth Court of Appeals does not recognize 'substantial compliance' and will summarily deny petitions for minor phrasing errors."
Robertson v. State
COA07
In Robertson v. State, the defendant challenged the trial court's exclusion of his recorded statement to police—in which he claimed a shooting was accidental—as 'self-serving hearsay.' On appeal, the Amarillo Court of Appeals focused on the 'cumulative evidence rule' and the requirements for harm analysis under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b). The Court held that even if the exclusion were an error, it was harmless because the defendant later provided the same information through his own trial testimony. Additionally, the Court found the issue waived because the defendant failed to include a specific harm analysis in his appellate brief.
Litigation Takeaway
"If a trial court excludes a police report or recorded statement, testifying to those same facts later in the trial typically 'cures' the error, making it nearly impossible to win an appeal on that issue. To preserve the error, you must argue on the record why the original statement possesses unique value—such as its timing or the witness's demeanor—that trial testimony cannot replicate."
PSHATOIA LAROSE v. JALEN HURTS
COA05
After Pshatoia Larose appealed a judgment from the 256th District Court, the Dallas Court of Appeals identified numerous procedural defects in her brief, including a lack of record citations and a failure to list parties or issues. Although the court provided formal notice and an opportunity to amend the filing, the appellant failed to respond. The court analyzed the case under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.1 and 38.9, emphasizing that while pro se filings are liberally construed, self-represented litigants must meet the same procedural standards as attorneys. Ultimately, the court held that the brief presented nothing for review and dismissed the appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys in Texas; failure to comply with mandatory appellate briefing rules—even after a warning—will result in the dismissal of the appeal and the preservation of the trial court's judgment."
Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange v. Mankoff
SCOTX
In Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange v. Mankoff, the Texas Supreme Court addressed whether a 'windstorm' deductible applied to damage caused by a tornado when the insurance policy left the term undefined. The homeowners argued the term was ambiguous because separate statutes and media outlets often distinguish between tornadoes and general windstorms. The Court applied the 'plain meaning' rule, determining that a tornado is fundamentally a 'subtype' of windstorm characterized by high-velocity winds. The Court held that the term was unambiguous as a matter of law and reversed the appellate court, ruling that extrinsic evidence or specialized statutory definitions cannot be used to create 'false ambiguity' in an otherwise clear contract.
Litigation Takeaway
"Draft with extreme precision: Texas courts will apply the broad 'plain meaning' of undefined terms in MSAs and decrees, regardless of whether a creative argument or external statute suggests a narrower interpretation. If you want a specific asset or expense excluded from a general category, you must explicitly define that distinction within the four corners of the document."
In The Interest of W.G., M.G., A.G., Children
COA14
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's decree terminating a father’s parental rights following his ten-year sentence for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Although the father was previously a primary caretaker, his long-term incarceration created a vacuum of care that he attempted to fill by proposing a kinship placement with the children's paternal grandparents. The court analyzed the case under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1) and the Holley v. Adams best-interest factors, concluding that the grandmother’s repeated positive drug tests for cocaine rendered the proposed placement unsuitable. The court held that the father’s criminal conduct, coupled with the failure to provide a safe, drug-free alternative environment, provided legally and factually sufficient evidence to support termination.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a parent faces long-term incarceration, the survival of their parental rights often depends entirely on the viability of their proposed kinship placements; practitioners must proactively vet relatives—specifically through independent drug testing—as a relative's substance abuse can effectively seal the parent's fate in a termination proceeding."
In the Estate of J. Hugh Wheatfall, Deceased
SCOTX
In a dispute over a decedent's estate, a trial court admitted a will to probate but explicitly limited its ruling to objections filed before a specific date, effectively ignoring a pending will contest filed just one day after that cutoff. The Supreme Court of Texas analyzed the case under the Crowson test, which determines finality in probate proceedings by whether an order unequivocally disposes of all parties and issues within a discrete phase of the litigation. The Court held that because the order's express language carved out a specific timeframe that excluded the pending contest, the order remained interlocutory, meaning the appellate timetable had not yet begun to run.
Litigation Takeaway
"To avoid the 'finality trap,' practitioners must verify that an order unequivocally disposes of all pending pleadings within a specific phase of litigation; if the order contains limiting language or fails to address a live contest, it may be interlocutory, preserving the right to appeal even after the standard 30-day window."