Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1447 opinions found
In the Matter of D. L. A.
COA01
In this juvenile delinquency matter, D.L.A. challenged a robbery adjudication, arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient to identify him as the perpetrator due to inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the case under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required by the Texas Family Code and Jackson v. Virginia, noting that the testimony of even a single eyewitness is legally sufficient to support a conviction. The court held that because the victims provided positive identifications and were corroborated by circumstantial evidence—specifically, D.L.A. being apprehended in a stolen vehicle containing the distinctive clothing and weapon described by the victims—the evidence was legally sufficient to support the trial court's finding of delinquent conduct.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas juvenile proceedings, the testimony of a single credible eyewitness is legally sufficient to sustain an adjudication; practitioners must focus on undermining identification reliability at the trial level because appellate courts will not re-weigh witness credibility or resolve evidentiary conflicts on appeal."
In the Interest of A.C., a Child
COA02
In this case, a mother attempted to appeal an order terminating her parental rights while the claims against the child's presumed father remained pending and unadjudicated. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed the order under the finality standard established in Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., determining that because the trial court explicitly recessed the father's portion of the case, the litigation had not concluded as to all parties. Despite the trial court's inclusion of "Mother Hubbard" language and statutory warnings regarding accelerated appeals, the court held that the order remained interlocutory and unappealable without a severance, resulting in a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never rely on boilerplate 'finality' language or Mother Hubbard clauses to create an appealable order in multi-party litigation. If any party's rights—such as an alleged or presumed father—remain unadjudicated, you must affirmatively move for a severance to trigger the appellate clock for a terminated parent, or your appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."
Pullen v. Pullen
COA02
In Pullen v. Pullen, the parties reached a partial settlement regarding their property division while an appeal of their divorce decree was pending. They filed an unopposed motion under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2)(B) requesting that the appellate court set aside only the property division and remand it for a new division consistent with their agreement. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed its authority to perform a 'surgical remand,' noting that while trial courts cannot sever a divorce from the property division, appellate courts have the discretion to affirm the divorce and SAPCR (child-related) orders while remanding the marital estate if the divorce itself is not challenged. The court held that the property division was set aside without regard to the merits and remanded to the trial court, while the portions of the decree granting the divorce and establishing custody and support were affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Parties who reach a property settlement during an appeal can utilize Rule 42.1(a)(2)(B) to remand only the financial disputes to the trial court. This 'surgical remand' allows you to finalize a settlement agreement without risking the finality of the divorce itself or disturbing favorable custody and support orders."
In re P.W.
COA02
A seventeen-year-old mother signed an affidavit of voluntary relinquishment of her parental rights that included an express waiver of service under Texas Family Code § 161.103. After her rights were terminated, she appealed, arguing the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction because, as a minor, she lacked the legal capacity to waive service of process. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals analyzed the conflict between the general common law rule prohibiting minors from waiving service and the specific provisions of the Texas Family Code. The court held that § 161.103 creates a specific statutory exception to the general disability of minority, meaning a minor parent's voluntary relinquishment affidavit containing a waiver of citation is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction without formal service.
Litigation Takeaway
"Texas Family Code § 161.103 serves as a statutory override to the common law rule that minors cannot waive service; a properly executed relinquishment affidavit from a minor parent is sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction and protect a termination judgment from collateral attacks based on lack of service."
In the Interest of E.J., a Child
COA02
In this case, a mother’s parental rights were terminated by a trial court based on specific conduct-based grounds and the child's best interest. Her appointed appellate attorney filed an Anders brief, stating that after a thorough review, there were no valid legal grounds to overturn the decision. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals conducted its own independent review of the record and the mother's personal responses, concluding that the evidence supported the termination. While the court affirmed the termination order, it denied the attorney's motion to withdraw, holding that appointed counsel in termination cases must continue representation through potential Texas Supreme Court proceedings unless specific 'good cause' is shown.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas parental termination cases, an appointed attorney's duty doesn't end just because an appeal is considered 'frivolous.' Under the 'P.M. Mandate,' counsel must generally remain on the case through the Texas Supreme Court stage, providing parents with continuous legal representation throughout the entire appeals process."
Conover v. Conover
COA01
Two daughters sued their grandfather’s estate for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, alleging he failed to properly fund testamentary trusts created by their father's will, resulting in a $3.4 million discrepancy. The First Court of Appeals analyzed whether the fiduciary relationship between the trustee and beneficiaries tolled the four-year statute of limitations under the discovery rule. The court held that while a fiduciary relationship relaxes the duty to inquire, it does not eliminate the requirement of reasonable diligence; because the daughters had reached the age of majority and had access to financial advisors and account statements years before filing suit, their claims were barred by limitations. Furthermore, the court held that an exculpatory clause in the will protected the executor because the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of willful misconduct or gross negligence.
Litigation Takeaway
"A fiduciary relationship is not a license to ignore financial red flags. Beneficiaries of family trusts must exercise reasonable diligence once they reach adulthood and gain access to financial records; failure to investigate discrepancies in a timely manner will result in the statute of limitations barring recovery, even if self-dealing or mismanagement occurred."
McKeand v. Lansdown
COA14
In this procedural dispute, attorney David McKeand challenged a $10,000 sanctions order and a 2021 disqualification order stemming from ongoing litigation between Renee Sizemore and Daniel Lansdown. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the sanctions challenge under the mootness doctrine, finding that because the court had already granted mandamus relief directing the trial court to vacate those sanctions, there was no longer a live controversy to resolve. Regarding the disqualification order, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction because the order was issued during a prior modification phase that ended in a final judgment in 2022. The court held that McKeand's failure to challenge the disqualification at that time—either through mandamus or a timely appeal of the 2022 judgment—precluded him from raising it years later during an enforcement proceeding. The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Family law litigation is often divided into distinct phases—such as modification and enforcement—each ending in its own final judgment. To preserve your rights, you must challenge interlocutory orders (like the removal of an attorney) immediately or directly after the final judgment of that specific phase; you cannot wait until a subsequent proceeding years later to raise old grievances. Additionally, obtaining relief via a writ of mandamus will effectively end any parallel direct appeal on the same issue."
Travis Park Apartments v. Perez
COA03
In Travis Park Apartments v. Perez, the Third Court of Appeals examined whether an attorney's general testimony regarding work performed was sufficient to support a fee award. After her detailed billing records were excluded due to a discovery error, the claimant’s attorney testified from memory, providing a total of 141.2 hours and describing broad categories of work like 'discovery' and 'trial prep.' The court analyzed this under the 'lodestar' method, which requires specific evidence of which tasks were performed, by whom, and when. The court held that general testimony is legally insufficient to support a fee award and reversed the judgment, remanding the case for a new trial on the issue of fees.
Litigation Takeaway
"To win and keep an attorney’s fee award in Texas, 'generalities' are not enough. If you cannot produce detailed billing records, you must be prepared to testify with granular precision about exactly how many hours were spent on specific individual tasks; providing aggregate totals for broad categories like 'litigation' or 'discovery' will likely lead to your fee award being overturned on appeal."
Burns v. Standard Casualty Company
COA14
In Burns v. Standard Casualty Company, a group of homeowners and their law firm faced significant financial sanctions after filing a lawsuit that a court deemed 'groundless.' The dispute began when the homeowners claimed that a frozen pipe burst during a winter storm should be classified as an 'explosion' under their insurance policy to secure higher coverage. The trial court found no evidence to support this claim and ruled that the lawsuit was brought in bad faith. On appeal, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld the sanctions against the clients and their attorneys, largely because the lawyers failed to bring a court reporter to the hearing. Without a record of the evidence, the appellate court was forced to presume the trial judge's decision was correct.
Litigation Takeaway
"Baseless 'kitchen sink' legal claims can lead to expensive sanctions against both the client and the law firm. To protect your rights, always ensure a court reporter is present at hearings to record the evidence; otherwise, you lose your ability to challenge an unfair ruling on appeal."
Camden Design Group, Inc. v. Dialyspa Management Services, Inc.
COA01
In this case, a plaintiff sued for breach of a settlement agreement because the defendant paid via a standard check rather than 'good funds' and missed a technical waiver deadline. Although the plaintiff eventually received all the money owed, they continued the lawsuit to seek additional damages and attorney's fees. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Texas contract law, concluding that a 'technical breach' is not actionable unless the plaintiff can prove actual financial loss (pecuniary damage). Additionally, because the plaintiff’s initial demand for payment asked for a significantly higher 'new settlement' rather than the specific amount owed, the court applied the 'excessive demand doctrine' to deny the plaintiff's request for attorney's fees. The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant, essentially ruling 'no harm, no foul.'
Litigation Takeaway
"You cannot successfully sue for a technical breach of a settlement agreement (like a late payment or the wrong form of payment) if you eventually receive the money and suffer no actual financial harm. Moreover, be precise in your demand letters: asking for more than what is strictly owed under the agreement can 'weaponize' the excessive demand doctrine against you, causing you to lose your right to recover attorney's fees."