Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1447 opinions found
Elaine T. Marshall, et al. v. Preston Marshall
COA14
In this long-running fiduciary dispute, a beneficiary challenged a trustee’s "Wyoming Maneuver"—the merger of Texas-based trusts into Wyoming entities to avoid local oversight. After the trial court issued a temporary injunction in 2017 to preserve the status quo, the trustees later moved to dissolve it, arguing that several trusts had since terminated and the litigation had matured. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the request using the mootness doctrine for the terminated trusts and the "change in circumstances" standard for the active ones. The court held that while the injunction must be dissolved for trusts that have reached their natural termination, it remains in force for active trusts because the passage of time and completion of discovery do not eliminate the underlying risk of asset dissipation or fiduciary breach.
Litigation Takeaway
"A temporary injunction is a resilient tool that does not expire simply because a case lingers for years; it remains the most effective way to prevent a spouse or trustee from 'decanting' assets into out-of-state jurisdictions. To dissolve an aging injunction, you must prove a qualitative change in the case's risk profile or show that the specific assets have already been distributed according to trust terms."
In the Interest of C.G.H., B.G.H., M.J.H. and C.K.H., Children
COA05
An appellant sought to overturn a final divorce decree and child custody order but failed to provide the appellate court with a reporter’s record (the trial transcript) or a brief that complied with court rules. The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that without a record of the trial proceedings, it must be presumed that the evidence supported the judge's decision. Additionally, the court held that while pro se litigants are given some leeway, they must still follow the Rules of Appellate Procedure; because the appellant failed to provide proper legal authorities or record citations even after being warned, her issues were waived.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never attempt an appeal without ensuring a complete reporter’s record is filed; without a transcript of the trial, the appellate court will presume the trial judge was correct. Furthermore, pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys—failing to follow briefing rules and provide specific record citations will result in the loss of your right to have your claims reviewed."
In re L.C.
COA12
After the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) removed her children following a suspicious burn injury, a mother sought their return at an adversary hearing. Despite conflicting medical testimony and the mother’s lack of criminal or Department history, the trial court granted temporary managing conservatorship to DFPS. On mandamus, the Twelfth Court of Appeals conditionally granted relief, holding that the trial court abused its discretion. The appellate court analyzed the case under Texas Family Code Section 262.201(g) and concluded that DFPS failed to satisfy the cumulative three-prong test for continued removal. Specifically, the court found that evidence of a past injury with disputed origins was insufficient to prove a "substantial risk of continuing danger" to the children, particularly given the mother's cooperation with safety plans and the absence of any prior history of violence.
Litigation Takeaway
"Evidence of a past injury is not a "blank check" for DFPS to maintain conservatorship; practitioners must hold the Department to the strict, cumulative three-prong test of Section 262.201(g), emphasizing that the Department must prove a prospective "substantial risk of continuing danger" that cannot be mitigated by reasonable efforts."
Elaine T. Marshall v. Preston Marshall
COA14
In a dispute involving a statutory trust accounting under Texas Property Code § 113.151, a beneficiary sought to compel a trustee to provide a financial statement of the trust. By the time of the appeal, the trust had terminated and the accounting had been provided, leading the trustee to argue the claim was moot. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed whether the claim survived for the purposes of attorney's fees and compensatory damages. The court held that while the request for the accounting itself was satisfied, the claim remained a "live controversy" regarding the recovery of attorney's fees. However, the court clarified that the statute only provides for the production of the accounting and does not authorize the recovery of monetary damages.
Litigation Takeaway
"A statutory accounting claim is a potent tool for transparency and fee-shifting in trust litigation, as the right to attorney's fees survives even if the trustee eventually complies or the trust terminates. However, this claim alone cannot be used to recover money damages; litigators must plead separate causes of action, such as breach of fiduciary duty, to recover financial losses."
Holton v. State
COA14
In Holton v. State, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed the preservation of error regarding expert testimony and jury charge instructions. Morris Holton III, convicted of aggravated sexual assault, argued on appeal that a police officer improperly bolstered a witness's credibility by testifying that her behavior was consistent with trauma and that his defense was prejudiced by the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard for extraneous offenses. The court held that the defense's trial objection—that the testimony 'invaded the province of the jury'—was a legal nullity that failed to preserve any error for appeal. Furthermore, while the trial court erred by not providing the required jury instruction regarding extraneous offenses, the error did not result in egregious harm because the evidence of those offenses was overwhelming.
Litigation Takeaway
"To preserve a challenge to expert testimony or witness bolstering, counsel must object before the witness answers and use specific grounds under the Rules of Evidence (such as Rule 702 or 403) rather than the obsolete 'province of the jury' objection. Additionally, always proactively request 'reasonable doubt' instructions for extraneous 'bad acts' in any phase of trial to avoid the difficult 'egregious harm' standard on appeal."
Everett v. State
COA08
In Everett v. State, the court addressed whether a trial court's strict time limits on jury selection (voir dire) violated a party's right to a fair trial. The defense attorney argued that the "chess clock" approach prevented him from properly vetting jurors, but he failed to provide a specific list of the questions he was unable to ask. The Eighth Court of Appeals held that simply objecting to a time limit or identifying general topics is insufficient to preserve a legal error for appeal. To successfully challenge a time limit, counsel must place the exact, unasked questions into the record. Furthermore, the court ruled that any objections to the jury selection process are waived if a party affirmatively states they have 'no objection' to the final jury panel.
Litigation Takeaway
"To protect your right to appeal a rushed jury selection, you must read your specific, unasked questions into the record at the first opportunity. Additionally, never say 'no objection' when the final jury is seated; instead, state that you accept the panel 'subject to' your previous objections to avoid waiving your client's rights."
In re J Martinez Trucking, Inc.
COA14
In a dispute involving breach of contract and fraud claims, a defendant sought to designate a former co-defendant as a responsible third party (RTP). The motion was filed more than 60 days before trial, but the plaintiff failed to file an objection within the 15-day statutory window. The trial court denied the motion, prompting a petition for writ of mandamus. The Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 33.004(f), which states that a court 'shall' grant leave to designate an RTP if no objection is filed within 15 days. The court held that after the 15-day period expires, the trial court’s duty to grant the motion becomes ministerial. Because the erroneous denial of an RTP designation skews trial proceedings and cannot be remedied on regular appeal, the court granted mandamus relief.
Litigation Takeaway
"Deadlines for objecting to a Responsible Third Party designation are strictly enforced in Texas. If you are involved in a case with 'tort-adjacent' claims—such as fraud on the community or waste of assets in a divorce—you must object to an RTP motion within 15 days of service. Failure to act within this narrow window results in a mandatory designation, allowing the other party to shift blame and potentially dilute their financial liability before a jury or judge."
Tims v. State
COA14
In Tims v. State, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court must declare a mistrial when a witness unexpectedly mentions a party's prior jail or prison stays. During a trial for aggravated sexual assault, the complainant twice referenced the defendant’s history of incarceration. Although the defense moved for a mistrial both times, the trial court instead opted to give the jury prompt instructions to disregard the statements. On appeal, the court analyzed whether these 'uninvited and unembellished' remarks were so prejudicial that they couldn't be cured by a simple instruction. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, affirming that a prompt instruction to disregard is generally sufficient to neutralize the harm caused by spontaneous mentions of a party's criminal past.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a witness makes an uninvited outburst regarding a party's criminal history, you must immediately move for an instruction to disregard and then move for a mistrial to preserve the error. However, be aware that Texas law maintains a strong presumption that a jury instruction can 'cure' the error, making a mistrial difficult to obtain unless the testimony is exceptionally inflammatory."
Truong v. Nguyen
COA14
In Truong v. Nguyen, the appellants filed a TCPA motion to dismiss domestic tort claims but failed to ensure a hearing was held on the motion. Several months later, they attempted an interlocutory appeal, arguing the motion was denied by operation of law. The Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 27, concluding that the statutory 30-day countdown for a 'denial by operation of law' is only triggered after a hearing occurs. Because no hearing was held, the court held that the motion was forfeited rather than denied, resulting in no appealable order. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"A TCPA motion is not self-executing; you must be the aggressor in scheduling a hearing. Failure to hold a hearing within the statutory window results in a forfeiture of the motion and the loss of your right to an interlocutory appeal, meaning you cannot use the motion to indefinitely stall trial court proceedings or discovery."
In re Roland Joseph Seymour
COA14
After the 387th District Court of Fort Bend County denied a motion for enforcement in a family law matter, Roland Joseph Seymour filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the trial court's order. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the petition under the strict dual requirements for mandamus relief: a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and the lack of an adequate remedy by appeal. The court found that Seymour failed to provide a record sufficient to prove that the trial court's refusal to enforce the prior order was a violation of a clear legal duty or a departure from settled legal principles. Because the relator did not satisfy these high procedural burdens, the appellate court denied the petition.
Litigation Takeaway
"Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, not a substitute for a standard appeal. To successfully challenge a trial court's refusal to enforce an order, a party must provide a comprehensive record—including hearing transcripts—that proves the court didn't just make an unfavorable decision, but committed a clear legal error for which no other remedy exists."