Opinion Library

Evidence

AOC TX, LLC d/b/a Angels of Care Pediatric Home Health v. Naomi Landeros and Carlos Silva, Individually and as Next Friend of O.S., Deceased Minor

COA08

In this medical liability case involving the tragic death of a medically fragile infant, the parents sued a home health provider. The defendant challenged the qualifications of the parents' nurse and physician experts, arguing they were not 'practicing' at the time required by law. The El Paso Court of Appeals strictly interpreted Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 74.402, finding that because the nurse had not practiced since 2021 and the doctor retired in 2019—while the claim arose in 2023—they failed the mandatory temporal requirements for experts. The court held the trial court abused its discretion in accepting the reports and reversed the ruling, though it remanded the case to allow the parents an opportunity to cure the technical deficiencies.

Litigation Takeaway

"Expert experience alone is insufficient if it is not contemporaneous with the case; to survive a motion to strike, an expert must be in active clinical practice or teaching at an accredited institution at the time the claim arose or when testimony is given. In family law cases involving medically fragile children or specialized needs, practitioners must scrutinize the 'active' status of experts to ensure their testimony is not disqualified for being out-of-date."

Child Custody

Anthony David McWilliams v. The State of Texas

COA13

In this criminal appeal, Anthony David McWilliams challenged a nine-year prison sentence for second-degree felony possession of methamphetamine. The case originated from a motion to adjudicate guilt after McWilliams violated the terms of his deferred adjudication community supervision. McWilliams pleaded 'true' to the violations, leading to his adjudication and sentencing. On appeal, his counsel filed an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal was frivolous. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals performed an independent review of the record and the procedural requirements of the Anders process. Finding no reversible error or arguable grounds for appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and granted counsel's motion to withdraw.

Litigation Takeaway

"A final felony conviction for drug possession, particularly with a significant prison sentence, provides nearly irrebuttable evidence of a 'material and substantial change in circumstances' in a family law modification suit. By leveraging the finality of a criminal adjudication where the parent pleaded 'true,' family law practitioners can effectively argue for restricted access or sole managing conservatorship based on the 'best interest of the child' and statutory drug-use prohibitions."

Evidence

In the Matter of M.A.R. Jr., A Child

COA13

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a juvenile court's order committing a minor, M.A.R. Jr., to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD). The conflict centered on whether the State had satisfied the "reasonable efforts" requirement of the Texas Family Code before removing the child from his home environment. Despite the child's diagnoses of autism and ADHD and his father's willingness to take custody, the Court analyzed the extensive history of failed interventions—including community supervision, psychiatric services, and a residential facility placement where the minor accumulated hundreds of incident reports. The Court held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the finding that local resources were exhausted and that commitment was necessary for the child's rehabilitation and public safety.

Litigation Takeaway

"When a child's removal from the home is at stake due to behavioral issues, the 'paper trail' is everything; a documented history of 'graduated sanctions' and failed local interventions is often the deciding factor in satisfying the legal 'reasonable efforts' standard."

TX-STAR SPEECH-LANGUAGE SERVICES, CORP. v. ANDREA SABATINO AND ELITE LEARNING SOLUTIONS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

COA13

In TX-STAR Speech-Language Services, Corp. v. Sabatino, the appellant appealed a trial court's order that denied a motion to seal court records. While the appeal was pending, the parties reached a settlement agreement and filed a joint motion to dispose of the appeal. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2)(B), which allows an appellate court to set aside a trial court's judgment without regard to the merits and remand the case for rendition of judgment in accordance with an agreement. The court granted the motion, vacating the trial court’s original order and remanding the case, effectively allowing the parties to bypass the unfavorable sealing ruling through their settlement.

Litigation Takeaway

"Parties can use the appellate process to "wipe the slate clean" after an unfavorable trial court ruling on sensitive issues like sealing records. By leveraging TRAP 42.1(a)(2)(B) as part of a settlement, litigants can secure a vacatur of a lower court's order without a merits-based review, providing a strategic "delete button" for public records or adverse interlocutory findings."

Child Custody

Stanley Lewis II v. The State of Texas

COA14

Stanley Lewis II appealed his intoxication manslaughter conviction, arguing that the victim's extreme intoxication (.233 BAC) and potential presence in the lane of traffic—rather than his own impairment—were the true causes of the fatal accident. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the causation requirements under the Texas Penal Code, determining that Lewis’s failure to maintain a single lane, his increased speed, and his failure to brake established a sufficient "but-for" causal link to the death. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that a defendant's criminal liability is not negated by the victim’s concurrent negligence or intoxication when the defendant’s own impaired actions led to the fatal maneuver.

Litigation Takeaway

"In custody disputes involving substance abuse, a parent cannot escape a finding of endangerment by simply pointing to the other parent's "unclean hands" or concurrent intoxication. This case demonstrates that if a parent’s impairment leads to a dangerous maneuver or failure to avoid an accident, the other party's conduct is legally irrelevant to the determination of fault and safety risk."

Ronald Adams a/k/a Ron Adams v. Gary Upshaw

COA05

The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s refusal to dismiss a defamation lawsuit under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). The dispute arose after the president of a youth sports organization sent communications regarding the failure to conduct background checks on a sex offender, identifying the plaintiff as the organization's representative during the relevant period. The court analyzed the case under the TCPA framework, determining that child safety in sports is a "matter of public concern," which shifted the burden to the plaintiff to prove his case with "clear and specific evidence." Because the plaintiff failed to meet this heightened evidentiary threshold for all elements of defamation, the court held the suit must be dismissed and remanded the case for an award of attorney's fees to the defendant.

Litigation Takeaway

"In 'crossover' defamation suits involving child safety or parental fitness, the TCPA is a powerful defensive shield. Plaintiffs cannot rely on vague allegations; they must provide specific, high-quality evidence at the very start of the case or face mandatory dismissal and the obligation to pay the defendant’s legal fees."

Evidence

In the Matter of the Estate of Henry Matthew Platt

COA09

In a dispute over the validity of a holographic will, the sister of the decedent attempted to disqualify the will through expert handwriting testimony. However, the expert's comparison samples (exemplars) did not consist of the decedent's own signature, but rather signatures the decedent allegedly made on behalf of his parents. The trial court excluded the expert's testimony, and the Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed. The court analyzed the case under Texas Rules of Evidence 703 and 705, concluding that because the expert lacked a 'control' sample of the decedent's actual name and signature, there was an unreliable foundation and an 'analytical gap' that rendered the opinion inadmissible.

Litigation Takeaway

"Expert testimony is only as reliable as the data supporting it; if your handwriting expert relies on representative or third-party signatures rather than authenticated personal signatures, the testimony is likely to be excluded for lack of foundation."

Family Violence & Protective Orders

Granado v. The State of Texas

COA13

After being convicted of kidnapping and aggravated assault and sentenced to 25 years in prison, Daniel Granado appealed. His court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal was frivolous. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record and the procedural steps taken by counsel. Finding no arguable grounds for error in the adjudication of guilt or the enhanced sentencing, the court affirmed the convictions. This finality is significant for family law proceedings, as it provides a conclusive basis to invoke Texas Family Code § 153.004, which restricts conservatorship and possession for parents with a history of family violence.

Litigation Takeaway

"A final criminal conviction for a violent offense serves as an 'unassailable' evidentiary sword in family court; practitioners should use an appellate affirmance to trigger the mandatory JMC prohibitions and rebuttable presumptions against possession found in Texas Family Code § 153.004."

Pantoja Gonzalez v. The State of Texas

COA13

In Gonzalez v. State, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal regarding a motion for forensic DNA testing due to a lack of jurisdiction. The court reaffirmed the 'Final Judgment Rule,' which dictates that appellate courts generally only have authority over final judgments of conviction or orders specifically authorized by statute for interlocutory review. Because the appellant could not produce a final judgment or show that the DNA testing order fell into a recognized exception, the court held it had no power to hear the case.

Litigation Takeaway

"Before filing an appeal, ensure the order is 'final' or fits a specific statutory exception for interlocutory appeals; for preliminary rulings like genetic testing or temporary custody that aren't immediately appealable, a Writ of Mandamus is the proper vehicle for relief."

Gutmann v. Hennig

COA13

In Gutmann v. Hennig, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals addressed a situation where a trial court's 'sua sponte' severance of a partial summary judgment created a 'two-front war,' forcing parties to litigate in both trial and appellate courts simultaneously. The Appellee, who had won the summary judgment, requested that the appellate court reverse his own victory and vacate the severance to save costs and promote judicial economy. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(c), which allows an appellate court to grant an appellee more favorable relief than the trial court did for 'just cause.' Finding that the parties' mutual desire for efficiency and the Appellant's lack of opposition constituted just cause, the court reversed the summary judgment without reaching the merits and vacated the severance order, effectively reconsolidating the case for a single trial.

Litigation Takeaway

"A 'win' in the form of a partial summary judgment can become a liability if a severance forces you to defend that win on appeal while simultaneously litigating the rest of the case at the trial level. If the costs of fragmented litigation outweigh the benefit of the judgment, parties can use Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(c) to seek a 'consensual remand'—reversing the summary judgment and vacating the severance to reconsolidate the estate's litigation into a single, more cost-effective proceeding."