Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1447 opinions found
In re Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.
COA05
In a commercial vehicle accident case, the employer (Old Dominion) challenged a discovery order requiring the production of personnel records for two of the driver's supervisors. Old Dominion argued that because it had stipulated to respondeat superior liability (vicarious liability) and sought bifurcation, the records were irrelevant to the remaining issues. The Dallas Court of Appeals analyzed the request under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.3, finding that because the plaintiff also pleaded direct corporate negligence and gross negligence, the documents—specifically training records, evaluations, and job descriptions—were relevant to proving the company's 'conscious indifference.' The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the order was narrowly tailored, included privacy protections, and sought information relevant to institutional culpability that a vicarious liability stipulation does not resolve.
Litigation Takeaway
"A party's stipulation to one form of liability does not serve as a 'discovery kill switch' for evidence related to other pleaded theories. Narrowly tailored discovery into supervisor training, performance, and knowledge remains discoverable to prove 'conscious indifference' or direct corporate misconduct, even when vicarious liability is conceded."
Robert Garrison Cheshire v. The State of Texas
COA12
Robert Garrison Cheshire appealed his convictions for aggravated sexual assault of two children, arguing that prior denials, recantations, and other credibility conflicts rendered the evidence insufficient, that trial counsel was ineffective, and that the trial court improperly denied a continuance. Applying the Jackson v. Virginia standard, the Twelfth Court of Appeals held that credibility determinations belonged to the jury and that the complainants’ detailed forensic-interview statements and trial testimony permitted a rational jury to find every element beyond a reasonable doubt despite their inconsistent statements. The court also rejected the ineffective-assistance claim because the record did not establish deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland, and it upheld the denial of a continuance because Cheshire failed to make the required record of diligence and specific harm. The convictions were affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"A child’s recantation or inconsistent statement does not automatically defeat an abuse allegation when the factfinder credits a detailed, coherent account supported by disclosure chronology or other process evidence. Family-law attorneys should organize disclosures, denials, and corroborating evidence into a clear timeline and treat inconsistencies as credibility issues rather than dispositive proof. Counsel seeking a continuance must also document diligence, identify exactly what additional time will produce, and preserve a concrete showing of harm; unsupported requests are unlikely to justify reversal."
Arturo Diaz, et al. v. Herc Rentals Inc.
COA08
In this case, a creditor (Herc Rentals) sought to reach assets transferred by a debtor (Arturo Diaz) to a newly formed LLC intended to shield those assets from a judgment. The debtor argued that the claims under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA) were barred by the four-year statute of repose. The Eighth Court of Appeals analyzed the 'discovery rule' within TUFTA, which allows a claim to be brought within one year of when a transfer 'could reasonably have been discovered.' The court held that the public filing of articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State constitutes constructive notice as a matter of law, meaning the clock started when the entity was formed, not when the debtor's fraudulent intent was later revealed in a deposition. Consequently, the claims were extinguished.
Litigation Takeaway
"Public records are notice to the world; in divorce litigation involving business owners, counsel must perform regular Secretary of State entity searches to identify newly formed shell companies. Waiting for formal discovery or depositions to uncover a spouse's fraudulent intent may result in your claims being barred by the statute of repose if the entity's formation was publicly recorded more than a year prior."
Justin Eugene Howard v. The State of Texas
COA06
In Howard v. State, the Sixth Court of Appeals addressed the requirement for jury unanimity when the State proves multiple distinct criminal acts to support a single charged count. The defendant was convicted of three counts of child sex offenses, but argued on appeal that the jury charge failed to require the jurors to agree on which specific incident formed the basis of the conviction for two of those counts. The court affirmed Count I because the evidence described only one discrete act for that timeframe, making a general unanimity instruction sufficient. However, it reversed Counts II and III, holding that the State's reliance on a 'course of conduct' narrative without a specific-unanimity instruction created a risk of a non-unanimous 'patchwork' verdict, which constituted egregious harm under the Almanza standard.
Litigation Takeaway
"In cases involving 'multiple acts over time'—common in protective orders and SAPCR proceedings—litigators must force the opposing party to identify specific, discrete incidents rather than relying on a generalized course of conduct. Failure to demand this specificity allows a factfinder to reach a 'composite' finding based on different incidents, whereas requiring incident-level clarity creates a stronger record for appeal and prevents relief based on vague, aggregated allegations."
Pesca Holding LLC v. Skoldeberg
COA04
In Pesca Holding LLC v. Skoldeberg, a jury trial was held regarding alleged fraud in a business sale. Although the defendants prevailed on the liability claims, they failed to include a question about attorney’s fees in the jury charge. The trial court, believing an informal agreement to bifurcate the issues existed, later convened a second jury trial specifically for fees. On appeal, the San Antonio Court of Appeals analyzed whether a party waives attorney's fees by failing to submit them to the initial factfinder. The court held that because attorney’s fees are questions of fact for the jury, they are waived unless the record contains a clear and unambiguous bifurcation agreement, such as a written Rule 11 agreement. Finding no such agreement in the record, the court reversed the $800,000 fee award and rendered a take-nothing judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never rely on an informal or "handshake" agreement to handle attorney’s fees after a jury trial; if the fee question isn't in the jury charge and you don't have a signed Rule 11 agreement to bifurcate, you waive your right to fees the moment the jury is discharged."
In re Georgina Yackelin Ramirez Uzcátegui
COA03
After being deported to Venezuela, a mother sought the return of her child from the father in Texas based on a Venezuelan custody order granting her exclusive possession. When the Texas trial court denied her writ of habeas corpus, the Third Court of Appeals intervened, ruling that the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) requires Texas courts to treat foreign custody orders with the same weight as orders from other U.S. states. The court held that once a parent establishes a 'bare legal right' to possession through a valid order, the trial court must enforce it as a mandatory duty, unless the opposing party proves a dire emergency or an immediate threat to the child's safety.
Litigation Takeaway
"Valid foreign custody orders provide a powerful 'fast-track' for child recovery in Texas; unless a parent can prove a dire emergency, Texas courts are legally required to enforce foreign decrees via habeas corpus without reconsidering the merits of the custody case."
Nemarugommula v. VHS San Antonio Partners, LLC
COA04
Dr. Vishal Nemarugommula sought a temporary injunction to prevent Baptist Medical Center from reporting his disciplinary suspension to the Texas Medical Board and the National Practitioner Data Bank, claiming the peer-review process was a 'sham' and reporting would cause irreparable reputational and financial harm. The Fourth Court of Appeals analyzed the requirements for injunctive relief, specifically whether the physician demonstrated a probable right to recovery and irreparable injury. The court held that because an independent fair-hearing panel substantiated the underlying misconduct (unauthorized medical record access), the physician failed to show a probable right to relief, and the hospital's mandatory reporting duties outweighed the physician's claim of reputational damage.
Litigation Takeaway
"In litigation involving high-asset professionals, 'reputational harm' is rarely sufficient to enjoin mandatory reporting of disciplinary actions to licensing boards; courts will prioritize statutory transparency over a litigant's attempt to 'sanitize' their record during a divorce or custody battle."
Robert Garrison Cheshire v. The State of Texas
COA12
In a consolidated appeal from child–sexual-assault convictions, Cheshire argued the evidence was legally insufficient because both complainants had made inconsistent statements and there was recantation-related evidence in treatment notes and to third parties, and he also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and reversible error from denial of a continuance. Applying the Jackson v. Virginia legal-sufficiency standard and deferring to the jury on credibility conflicts, the Twelfth Court of Appeals held a rational jury could find the elements of aggravated sexual assault of a child beyond a reasonable doubt based on the complainants’ detailed disclosures in protocol-based forensic interviews, their in-court testimony, corroborative context including a journal discovered during treatment, and testimony explaining delayed disclosure/recantation dynamics. The court further held Cheshire failed to meet Strickland because the record did not demonstrate both deficient performance and prejudice, and it found no reversible error in the continuance ruling because he did not make a concrete, record-supported showing of specific harm from the denial. The convictions were affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Recantation and inconsistent statements rarely end the inquiry—when a case includes a structured forensic interview, detail-rich outcry evidence, corroborating context (e.g., journals/treatment disclosures), and testimony explaining delayed disclosure or recantation, courts typically treat contradictions as jury credibility issues. In family-law SAPCR/protective-order strategy, build (or attack) the “credibility mosaic”: protective parties should preserve forensic-interview and corroboration evidence and explain recantation dynamics; accused parties must go beyond impeachment and develop affirmative proof of contamination, motive, or methodological flaws, and make a detailed record for any continuance request."
Jay Morgan v. The State of Texas
COA03
Jay Morgan appealed his conviction for indecency with a child, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing. Morgan’s motion was based on a post-trial affidavit from his ex-fiancée, who claimed she had recanted her incriminating statements to investigators before the trial but was told she did not need to testify. The Third Court of Appeals analyzed whether the affidavit established "reasonable grounds" for relief, concluding it was too conclusory and failed to demonstrate why the evidence could not have been presented at trial with reasonable diligence. The court also held that the complainant’s testimony was legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict, affirming the conviction with a minor clerical modification.
Litigation Takeaway
"A post-trial "recantation" affidavit is not an automatic ticket to a new hearing; to reopen a case or set aside an order, the moving party must show the new evidence is specific, material, and could not have been discovered earlier through reasonable diligence."
Fusilier v. State of Texas ex rel. Galloway
COA04
Joshua Fusilier appealed a civil protective order issued in favor of Valencia Galloway, arguing that his subsequent acquittal in a related criminal case necessitated the order's dissolution and that the evidence against him was insufficient. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the order, explaining that civil protective orders and criminal trials operate under different legal standards—"preponderance of the evidence" versus "beyond a reasonable doubt." The court held that a complainant's credible testimony regarding a physical struggle is legally sufficient to support a finding of family violence, and a "not guilty" verdict in criminal court does not invalidate a civil court's finding that violence was likely to occur.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas, a criminal acquittal does not automatically overturn a civil protective order. Because the 'burden of proof' is lower in civil proceedings, a family court can still maintain a protective order even if the state fails to secure a criminal conviction for the same conduct."