Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1447 opinions found
Cisneros v. Leal
COA04
After a minor passenger suffered catastrophic injuries in a car crash caused by a minor driver who had been drinking at several adults' homes, the victim sued the homeowners under Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code § 2.02(c). The trial court granted summary judgment for the homeowners, but the Fourth Court of Appeals reversed. The court analyzed the plain text of the 2005 statutory amendment, concluding that the Texas Legislature specifically created a civil cause of action against non-parent adults (21+) who knowingly provide alcohol to, or allow alcohol to be provided to, minors under 18 on premises they own or lease.
Litigation Takeaway
"Texas law provides a clear statutory path to hold non-parent adults liable for hosting underage drinking; family law practitioners can use this 'social host' liability to argue for restricted possession or supervision requirements when a parent’s household or social circle endangers a child through permissive alcohol use."
McNamara v. Bartolomei
COA04
McNamara sued his former attorney for defamation per se following a statement made in a court-ordered response during a habeas proceeding. The trial court granted summary judgment for the attorney on two independent grounds: attorney immunity and the judicial-proceedings privilege. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that McNamara's failure to challenge the judicial-proceedings privilege on appeal required affirmance under the unchallenged independent-ground rule. Substantively, the court held that the judicial-proceedings privilege provides absolute immunity for statements made in the course of litigation, meaning defamation claims based on such statements are barred even if the statements are false or made with malice.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas, statements made in pleadings, affidavits, or other court filings are protected by an absolute judicial-proceedings privilege, shielding parties and counsel from defamation liability regardless of malice. Furthermore, if a trial court grants summary judgment on multiple grounds, an appellant must challenge every single ground in their brief, or the appellate court will automatically affirm the ruling."
In the Interest of J.M., a Child
COA12
After the Department of Family and Protective Services filed a petition to terminate a mother's parental rights due to substance abuse and family violence, the parties executed a statutory Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) appointing the mother as a possessory conservator. Despite the agreement, the mother appealed the final order. The Twelfth Court of Appeals performed an independent review of the record and found the appeal frivolous under Anders v. California. The court held that because the MSA complied with Texas Family Code § 153.0071—including the required non-revocation language and voluntary signatures—it was binding on the trial court. While the court affirmed the judgment, it denied appointed counsel's motion to withdraw, clarifying that the right to counsel in government-initiated suits persists through the exhaustion of proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court.
Litigation Takeaway
"A statutory Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) is nearly unassailable on appeal if it contains the proper non-revocation language and is signed by all parties; furthermore, appointed counsel in CPS cases must remain on the case through the Texas Supreme Court level even if they believe the appeal is frivolous."
Lamar Advantage Outdoor Co., L.P. v. LaCore Enterprises, LLC, et al.
COA05
A billboard lessee (Lamar) sued a property owner and a third-party purchaser for breach of contract and conversion after the owner sold the property without providing a contractually mandated 'desire to sell' notice. This notice was a condition precedent to the lessee's 30-day window to exercise an option for a perpetual easement. The Dallas Court of Appeals analyzed the lease's plain language and determined that because the lessor failed to provide the required notice, the lessee's exercise window never expired. The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment, holding that genuine issues of material fact regarding the breach and the lessee's right to possession precluded judgment as a matter of law.
Litigation Takeaway
"In complex property divisions, practitioners must perform exhaustive due diligence for 'poison pill' clauses like rights of first refusal or purchase options; a failure to provide mandated notice to third-party lessees during a post-divorce sale or transfer can lead to litigation that clouds the title and strips the community asset of its value."
T.L.H. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
COA03
In this case, a father (Timothy) appealed the trial court's order terminating his parental rights. His court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, stating that the appeal was frivolous and lacked merit. The Third Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record, specifically analyzing the trial court's endangerment findings under Subsections (D) and (E) as mandated by the 'In re N.G.' standard. The court also addressed the duration of appointed counsel's obligations under 'In re P.M.' The court held that the appeal was indeed frivolous, affirmed the termination order, and clarified that counsel's duties extend through the filing of a potential petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court.
Litigation Takeaway
"In parental termination appeals, an Anders brief does not trigger an automatic withdrawal; the appellate court must still perform a rigorous independent review of endangerment findings, and appointed counsel remains obligated to represent the client through the Texas Supreme Court level."
King v. State
COA06
In King v. State, a father was convicted of knowingly causing serious bodily injury to his 28-month-old child by omission after failing to provide food or water for over 15 hours, resulting in severe dehydration and malnutrition. On appeal, King challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence regarding his mental state. The Texarkana Court of Appeals analyzed the case using the 'cumulative force' doctrine for circumstantial evidence, looking at the child's confinement, the father's exclusive control, and the obviousness of the child's physical deterioration. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that a rational jury could infer the defendant acted 'knowingly' because he was aware his failure to provide basic necessities was reasonably certain to cause serious bodily injury.
Litigation Takeaway
"In neglect-based family law litigation, you can prove a parent's 'knowing' endangerment without a confession by building a narrative around exclusive control, a documented timeline of deprivation, and the objective, observable physical decline of the child."
In Re Sufian Khalaf
COA04
In a commercial motor vehicle accident case, an individual driver-defendant sought mandatory bifurcation of compensatory and exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 72.052. The plaintiff argued the statutory right to bifurcation applied only to employer-entities, a position the trial court adopted in denying the motion. On mandamus review, the San Antonio Court of Appeals analyzed the plain language of the statute, noting the mandatory directive 'shall' and the broad definition of 'a defendant' which includes vehicle operators. The court held that trial courts have no discretion to deny a timely bifurcation motion filed by an individual driver and granted mandamus relief to prevent the prejudice of 'tainted' jury deliberations.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family law cases involving interspousal torts or joined third-party claims, attorneys should move for mandatory bifurcation of punitive damages to prevent inflammatory 'bad act' evidence from unfairly influencing the jury's perception of the 'just and right' division of the community estate."
Strickland v. State
COA07
In Strickland v. State, a trial court attempted to stack a defendant's sentences by 'judicially noticing' prior convictions from a different term of court. The Seventh Court of Appeals held that judicial notice cannot be used as a shortcut to prove matters outside the operative record or term of court. Instead, the proponent must introduce competent evidence and establish a link between the party and the records. Although the trial court erred in its method, the appellate court affirmed the sentence because the State introduced the actual judgments containing matching identifiers (such as SID and Social Security numbers), which provided sufficient proof of the prior convictions.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not rely on a judge 'knowing the file' or taking judicial notice of records from other cases or prior terms; to survive appeal, you must formally introduce certified records and provide specific testimony or identifiers that link those documents to the party."
Thomas v. State
COA04
In Thomas v. State, a defendant challenged his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove 'penetration' because the complainant denied full vaginal entry and used the phrase 'tried to penetrate.' The Fourth Court of Appeals analyzed the Penal Code and established case law, determining that penetration does not require full entry; rather, any contact more intrusive than the outer vaginal lips is sufficient. The court found that the complainant's testimony regarding 'pushing in' and sustained inward pressure for ten to twenty minutes allowed a rational jury to infer penetration. Additionally, the court addressed a dispute over jury readbacks, holding that trial courts have broad discretion under Article 36.28 to provide only the specific testimony in dispute rather than a comprehensive replay. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence legally sufficient and no abuse of discretion in the trial court's limited readback.
Litigation Takeaway
"Legal 'penetration' in sexual abuse allegations—whether in a criminal trial or a family law SAPCR—does not require full entry; evidence of any intrusion beyond the outer labia, such as sustained inward pressure or 'pushing in,' is sufficient to support a finding of abuse. When dealing with jury readbacks or selective quoting of the record, attorneys must make specific objections that match their appellate theories to avoid preservation traps."
Sebastian Linke v. Kyle Folmer
COA04
In Sebastian Linke v. Kyle Folmer, the San Antonio Court of Appeals addressed whether a judgment is final for appeal purposes when it expressly reserves a ruling on a prevailing party’s attorney’s fees. Despite the judgment containing boilerplate language stating it was 'final and appealable,' the court analyzed the record under the Lehmann and Sealy Emergency Room standards. It determined that because the prevailing party had a mandatory contractual claim for fees that the trial court explicitly deferred for a later hearing, the judgment did not actually dispose of all claims. Consequently, the court held that the judgment was not final and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never rely on 'final and appealable' boilerplate language if the trial court has reserved a ruling on mandatory attorney's fees. To avoid a jurisdictional trap or a dismissed appeal, ensure the final decree expressly grants, denies, or severs all pending fee claims."