Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
786 opinions found
Landry v. Currie
COA10
After a catastrophic motor vehicle accident involving an intoxicated employee, the Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed findings of negligent entrustment and respondeat superior liability against a business owner and his entity. The court analyzed whether the owner's direction for the employee to return a vehicle to a "company yard" fell under the "mission" exception to the coming-and-going rule, concluding the employee was acting within the scope of his employment. Ultimately, the court held that the owner was individually liable for negligent entrustment because the duty of care extends to the specific circumstances of the entrustment, and it upheld multi-million dollar noneconomic damage awards for physical impairment and mental anguish.
Litigation Takeaway
"Business owners and their spouses must be aware that individual liability for 'negligent entrustment' can create massive community debts that may liquidate family assets during a divorce; however, an innocent spouse may have a claim for 'waste' or 'reconstitution' if the other spouse's gross negligence led to the liability."
In Re Michael Wayne Lowman
COA09
After being found in contempt for failing to sign property listing documents required by a divorce decree, Michael Lowman was sentenced to 180 days in jail. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of his confinement. However, by the time the Ninth Court of Appeals reviewed the case, Lowman had fully served his sentence and been released. The court analyzed the case under the mootness doctrine, noting that a writ of habeas corpus is a tool used specifically to challenge an existing restraint on liberty. Because Lowman was no longer confined, the court held that there was no longer a live controversy to resolve and dismissed the petition as moot.
Litigation Takeaway
"Habeas corpus is a race against the clock: if a client is jailed for contempt, you must immediately seek an emergency stay or a personal recognizance bond. If the client serves the full sentence before the appellate court rules, the case becomes moot, and you lose the chance to vacate a potentially void contempt order."
Ford v. State
COA13
In Ford v. State, a defendant appealed his capital murder conviction, challenging the seizure of evidence from a vehicle registered in his name. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed whether a party maintains a Fourth Amendment 'reasonable expectation of privacy' in property that has been legally awarded to an ex-spouse. The court held that a final divorce decree serves as a constitutional boundary; because the decree awarded the vehicle to the victim, the defendant's possessory and privacy interests were extinguished. As a result, the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search, regardless of whether the title had been formally transferred.
Litigation Takeaway
"A final divorce decree is a powerful tool that immediately terminates a spouse's privacy rights in awarded property. Practitioners should draft decrees with extreme specificity—including VINs and clear divestiture clauses—to ensure that an ex-spouse cannot later claim constitutional protections to block the discovery of evidence or the enforcement of property rights."
AHMED OLAYIWOLA, Appellant V. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL LLC D/B/A LA FITNESS; FITNESS INTERNATIONAL GP, LLC; L.A. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL TEXAS, L.P.; AND “L.A. FITNESS”
COA14
After appealing a trial court's dismissal of his claims, Ahmed Olayiwola filed a voluntary nonsuit of all underlying claims against all parties while the appeal was pending. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals examined whether the appeal could continue despite the absence of a live controversy at the trial level. Relying on the principle that appellate courts lack jurisdiction over moot disputes, the court determined that the nonsuit effectively extinguished the controversy. The court held that because there was no longer a justiciable issue for the court to resolve or a judgment that would have any practical legal effect, the appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction under Rule 42.3(a).
Litigation Takeaway
"A voluntary nonsuit in the trial court acts as a 'tactical reset' that moots a pending appeal; this allows a party to effectively 'vacuum' the appellate court's jurisdiction to avoid an unfavorable precedent or a poorly developed record, provided the opposing party has not filed a counterclaim for affirmative relief."
In Re Jose Francisco Quintero and JQ Brick Repair & Restoration Services, LLC
COA14
In a mandamus proceeding, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed whether experts who author counteraffidavits under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 18.001 are protected from deposition by the consulting expert privilege. The trial court had ordered the depositions of four experts who provided counteraffidavits but were not designated as testifying witnesses. Analyzing Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 192.3(e) and 192.7, the appellate court determined that because the experts were not designated to testify and their work was not reviewed by any testifying experts, they remained privileged consultants. The court held that serving a counteraffidavit does not constitute a waiver of the consulting expert privilege, and thus the trial court abused its discretion by compelling the depositions.
Litigation Takeaway
"Attorneys can effectively challenge the reasonableness of medical or professional expenses by using Section 18.001 counteraffidavits from consulting experts who remain immune from deposition, so long as those experts are never designated to testify and their work product is not shared with testifying experts."
Best Choice Restaurants, LLC v. Edna Lumber Co., Inc.
COA13
While an appeal regarding a district court judgment was pending, the appellant (Best Choice Restaurants) and the appellee reached a settlement agreement. The appellant subsequently filed a voluntary motion to dismiss the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), requesting that each party bear its own costs as agreed. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the request under TRAP 42.1, finding that the settlement rendered the appeal unnecessary and that dismissal would not prejudice the rights of any other party. The court granted the motion, dismissed the appeal, and explicitly ordered that no motions for rehearing would be entertained to ensure the immediate and absolute finality of the settlement.
Litigation Takeaway
"To ensure a "clean break" and prevent "buyer's remorse" after reaching a settlement during an appeal, practitioners should file a voluntary motion to dismiss under TRAP 42.1(a)(1) and specifically request that the court preclude any motions for rehearing. This strategy secures immediate finality and protects the settlement from last-minute attempts to revive litigation."
Moir Watershed Services, LLC v. Law Office of Heath Gurinsky, PLLC and Spencer Hofmann
COA10
In Moir Watershed Servs., LLC v. Law Office of Heath Gurinsky, PLLC, a Texas-based company sued a New York law firm in a Texas court for legal malpractice and breach of contract. The New York firm challenged the lawsuit, arguing that Texas courts lacked personal jurisdiction over them since they were based in New York and the work was performed there. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case, holding that merely entering into a contract with a Texas resident does not establish the 'purposeful availment' necessary for jurisdiction. The court concluded that because the legal services were performed outside of Texas and the defendants did not specifically target the Texas market, they lacked the minimum contacts required to be sued in a Texas forum.
Litigation Takeaway
"Hiring an out-of-state attorney or expert for your legal matter does not guarantee you can sue them in Texas if something goes wrong. If their work is performed in their home state and they haven't purposefully reached into Texas to conduct business, you may be forced to litigate any malpractice or fee disputes in their jurisdiction, significantly increasing your costs and risks."
WRENSFORD v. COOK
COA14
In Wrensford v. Cook, the appellant attempted to appeal a trial court's oral denial of a protective order. Although the trial court's docket sheet reflected the denial, no formal written order was ever signed by the judge. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and established case law, determining that neither an oral pronouncement nor a docket entry constitutes a final, appealable judgment. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because a signed, written order is a mandatory prerequisite for appellate review, leading to the summary dismissal of the appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"An oral ruling or a docket sheet entry is not enough to start the appellate process; you must ensure a formal written order is drafted and signed by the judge to preserve your right to appeal."
Kimberly Pickens v. Robert J. Hewitt
COA13
In Pickens v. Hewitt, the estate of a woman who died of alcohol poisoning sued a commercial landlord, arguing the landlord had a duty to evict a tenant for overserving alcohol because the lease allowed for termination in the event of illegal acts. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed whether a landlord's contractual right to terminate a lease for law violations equates to 'actual control' over the premises under Texas liability principles. The court held that such a provision is intended to protect the landlord's interests, not to safeguard third parties, and affirmed summary judgment for the landlord, ruling he owed no legal duty to the deceased patron.
Litigation Takeaway
"A landlord’s contractual right to evict a tenant for illegal conduct does not create a legal duty to protect third parties from the tenant’s negligence. For family law practitioners, this provides a vital defense to shield a 'passive' spouse or a real estate holding entity from the operational liabilities and tort judgments arising from a business run by the other spouse."
Omoregie v. TPS Will Clayton, LLC
COA01
In an interlocutory appeal from a Harris County district court order compelling arbitration and staying the case, the First Court of Appeals considered whether it had jurisdiction to review an order that sends the dispute to arbitration. Applying the rule that interlocutory appellate jurisdiction exists only by statute, the court examined Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 51.016 (FAA orders) and 9 U.S.C. § 16, which expressly bars interlocutory appeals from orders staying litigation and compelling arbitration. The court also found no Texas statutory authority (including under the TAA) permitting an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion to compel arbitration (as opposed to orders denying arbitration). Because the order did not dispose of all parties and claims and no statute authorized immediate review, the court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"If the trial court compels arbitration and stays your case, you generally cannot take an immediate appeal—so you must treat the compel-arbitration hearing as a make-or-break event, build a clean record, and consider mandamus only in the rare case of a clear abuse of discretion with no adequate appellate remedy."