Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
786 opinions found
In the Interest of K.L., A Child
COA07
In this parental termination case, a mother appealed a court order terminating her rights after she failed to appear at the final hearing, claiming she lacked actual notice of the trial setting. The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, ruling that the mother waived her due process challenge by failing to raise the issue in the trial court through a motion for new trial. Furthermore, the court held that under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a, notice provided to a party's attorney is legally imputed to the client. The court emphasized that the mother’s specific instructions to her attorney regarding the hearing—given just days prior to the trial—established that she had actual knowledge of the proceeding, thereby satisfying constitutional notice requirements.
Litigation Takeaway
"Notice given to an attorney is legally considered notice to the client; if a party fails to appear for trial, any claim regarding a lack of notice must be preserved in the trial court via a motion for new trial or it will be waived on appeal."
IN RE CHARLES DUSTIN MYERS
COA02
In In re Charles Dustin Myers, the Relator challenged an order from the 322nd District Court of Tarrant County by filing a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion to stay the proceedings. The Second Court of Appeals summarily denied both requests, concluding that the Relator failed to meet the stringent two-prong test required for extraordinary relief: demonstrating a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and proving that no adequate remedy exists through a standard appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, not a secondary appeal; litigants must provide an impeccable record and prove that a trial court’s error is both indisputable and impossible to correct through the normal appeals process."
In the Interest of S.A., A.A., A.L.A., Children
COA13
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights for M.R. and B.J.A. after their three children were found to have suffered severe physical abuse, neglect, and drug exposure. Despite the mother’s technical completion of some service plan requirements, the court found that her failure to secure stable housing, inconsistent visitation, and lack of accountability for the children's injuries—including a fractured tibia and positive drug tests—created a continuing endangering environment. The court held that under the Texas Family Code, the evidence of endangering conduct and environments was clear and convincing, and termination was in the best interest of the children.
Litigation Takeaway
"Simply 'checking the boxes' of a court-ordered service plan is not enough to prevent the termination of parental rights; Texas courts require evidence of actual behavioral change and a demonstrated ability to provide a safe, stable environment."
Gannon v. The State of Texas
COA02
After Dayton Joseph Gannon was convicted of aggravated robbery for brandishing a knife and aggressively posturing toward a victim through a laundromat's glass door, he appealed, arguing that the threat of injury was not 'imminent' because the victim was armed and separated from him by a physical barrier. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed the statutory meaning of 'imminent'—defined as 'near, at hand, or on the verge of happening'—and determined that a threat is judged by the aggressor's volatility and conduct rather than the victim's defensive capabilities. The court held that the display of a deadly weapon combined with combative posturing is sufficient to establish an imminent threat, regardless of whether the victim has a weapon or is behind glass.
Litigation Takeaway
"A threat of family violence remains 'imminent' even if the victim takes defensive measures or is separated from the aggressor by a barrier; the legal focus is on the aggressor's display of weaponry and volatility rather than the victim's relative safety."
Kist v. Kist
COA14
Kathryn Kist sought to lift a geographic residency restriction to relocate her four children from Texas to Indiana, presenting evidence of a $70,000 job offer, free housing from her parents, and access to private schooling. She argued that the father, Jonathan, was largely uninvolved and that staying in Texas was a financial hardship. Jonathan contested the move, presenting evidence of his involvement and the children's stability in their current environment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the conflict using the Lenz factors and Texas public policy favoring 'frequent and continuing contact' with both parents. The court held that because the trial court faced conflicting testimony regarding the father’s involvement and the children's best interests, it did not abuse its discretion in maintaining the residency restriction or in characterizing Jonathan's post-petition home purchase as his separate property.
Litigation Takeaway
"Financial gain and a better support system out-of-state are not enough to guarantee a relocation; you must prove the move serves the children's best interests while maintaining the other parent's relationship. Because these cases are so fact-dependent, a trial court's decision to maintain the status quo is extremely difficult to overrule on appeal."
EX PARTE BESSIE TEKILA MARTIN
COA02
In Ex parte Martin, the Second Court of Appeals addressed a double jeopardy challenge where a defendant claimed that out-of-county offenses were barred from prosecution because they had been 'taken into account' during a prior sentencing in another county under Texas Penal Code Section 12.45. While the court acknowledged that a valid Section 12.45 agreement bars subsequent prosecution for the admitted conduct, it found the record in this case insufficient to verify which specific offenses were included in the prior plea. Consequently, the court held that a defendant must provide a complete factual record—including the specific list of unadjudicated offenses—to sustain such a claim and remanded the case for further evidentiary development.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family law litigation, a spouse's criminal 'Judgment' is often just the tip of the iceberg; to effectively prove fault or waste of community assets, practitioners must subpoena the full 'plea packet' and the 'Section 12.45 list' to secure a binding judicial confession of the underlying misconduct."
YOLANDA HERNANDEZ, Appellant v. EKISRA FRED LOUNNARATH AND AMX PCS, INC., Appellee
COA05
When a party fails to appear for trial, leading to a dismissal for want of prosecution, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(3) requires the court to reinstate the case if the failure was due to an 'accident or mistake' rather than 'conscious indifference.' In this case, a law firm missed a trial setting because of a clerical calendaring error and a mistaken belief that a proposed scheduling order would be signed. The trial court denied reinstatement, finding the attorney's reliance on unsigned orders unreasonable. The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that even if an attorney’s mistake is negligent or 'objectively unreasonable,' it does not constitute conscious indifference. As long as the failure to appear was not intentional or a purposeful disregard of the court's authority, the trial court must reinstate the case.
Litigation Takeaway
"A simple clerical error or an 'unreasonable' misunderstanding of a court deadline is sufficient to reinstate a dismissed case, as the law protects litigants from losing their day in court due to an attorney’s non-intentional administrative mistakes."
Messele Kelel v. Dallas Central Appraisal District
COA05
In Messele Kelel v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, a property owner challenged a $74,250 tax valuation, presenting evidence of lower-priced comparable sales and internal settlement offers from the appraisal district as low as $30,000. The trial court granted a 'no-evidence' summary judgment in favor of the appraisal district, effectively dismissing the owner's claims. The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that the owner's evidence—specifically the comparable data and the district's own lower offers—constituted 'more than a scintilla' of evidence. The court held that while this evidence did not prove the property's value as a matter of law, it was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact that must be resolved at trial.
Litigation Takeaway
"To defeat a 'no-evidence' motion for summary judgment regarding property value, you do not always need a formal expert appraisal; even informal evidence like tax records, comparable sales, or internal settlement offers can meet the 'scintilla' threshold to keep your claim alive for trial."
Mangawe v. The State of Texas
COA02
Bengamiah Mangawe appealed a conviction for continuous sexual abuse, arguing that vague testimony regarding dates (like 'November-ish') failed to meet the 30-day statutory duration requirement. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals analyzed the evidence under a deferential standard, noting that a detective's testimony about Mangawe’s non-verbal 'nod' or confirmation of the timeline during an interview was substantive evidence. The court held that the jury is the sole arbiter of credibility and can resolve chronological conflicts in favor of the verdict, even when dates are approximate or admissions are not captured on audio.
Litigation Takeaway
"Vague chronological approximations like 'November-ish' are sufficient to prove a pattern of conduct if anchored by a witness who can testify to a party's non-verbal confirmation or 'nod' regarding the timeframe."
In Re Aaron Nicholas Thomas
COA09
The Relator sought a writ of mandamus to vacate a default judgment in a suit to modify the parent-child relationship (SAPCR), claiming the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request to participate via Zoom as a disability accommodation and by entering judgment without proper service. The Ninth Court of Appeals denied the petition, finding that the Relator’s own medical evidence—which stated he could sit and work for eight hours—contradicted his claim that he could not attend court in person. Furthermore, the court determined that the Relator had made a general appearance, which waived any defects in service under Rule 124, and that a standard appeal provided an adequate legal remedy to challenge the final judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"Making a general appearance in a case waives your right to challenge service of process later, and requests for disability accommodations must be backed by specific medical evidence that directly links a condition to an inability to attend court in person."