Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1262 opinions found
RCIS ENTERPRISES, LLC, Appellant v. HOUSER FABRICATION, LLC, Appellee
COA06
RCIS Enterprises, LLC appealed a bench-trial judgment in favor of Houser Fabrication, LLC for breach of contract that awarded $78,491.10 in damages, prompt-payment interest, and attorney’s fees. The Texarkana Court of Appeals applied the City of Keller legal-sufficiency standard. It upheld the trial court’s finding that a binding contract existed, reasoning that the parties’ testimony and course of performance supplied the essential terms with reasonable certainty and supported a meeting of the minds. But the court concluded the evidence did not provide a legally sufficient evidentiary bridge between the admitted invoices/testimony and the exact dollar amount awarded, so the specific damages figure could not stand. It also held the record did not establish the statutory predicates for Texas Prompt Payment Act interest, requiring that interest award to be reversed. Because the principal recovery and interest were altered on appeal, the prevailing-party posture and “results obtained” changed, so the attorney-fee award was reversed and remanded for redetermination and recalculation consistent with the modified recovery.
Litigation Takeaway
"In a bench trial, findings of fact won’t save a money judgment if the record doesn’t support the exact numbers. Tie every damages/valuation line item to specific exhibits and testimony, and build evidence for statutory interest predicates. If the recovery may be reduced on appeal, preserve the fee award by developing Arthur Andersen evidence (and segregation where needed), because changes to the “bottom line” often force a fee remand."
In the Matter of B.T.
COA02
In In the Matter of B.T., the Second Court of Appeals reviewed a juvenile court's order transferring a young man to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to finish an eighteen-year murder sentence. While the court found that the transfer was required by law because the respondent could not complete his minimum confinement before turning nineteen, it identified an error regarding court costs. The appellate court held that because the respondent had been declared indigent, that status was presumed to continue through the appeal. Consequently, the court affirmed the prison transfer but modified the judgment to strike all assessed court costs.
Litigation Takeaway
"Once a party's indigent status is established under the Family Code, it is legally presumed to continue throughout the litigation; attorneys should always audit final judgments and bills of costs to ensure clerks do not improperly assess fees against indigent clients."
In the Matter of J.S.R., A Child
COA07
The Amarillo Court of Appeals considered whether a juvenile’s voluntary motion to dismiss an appeal was valid when it involved a waiver of statutory rights. While typical civil dismissals require only a signature from an attorney, the Court emphasized that Texas Family Code Section 51.09 imposes stricter "belt and suspenders" requirements for minors. The Court analyzed the motion and found that it correctly included signatures from both the juvenile and his attorney, as required by law. Consequently, the Court held the waiver was effective and granted the dismissal, highlighting that specific statutory protections for children take precedence over general appellate procedural rules.
Litigation Takeaway
"In any legal proceeding involving a minor’s rights—whether in juvenile delinquency or high-stakes family litigation—a standard signature from counsel is insufficient for a waiver. Under Texas Family Code Section 51.09, any waiver of a child's constitutional or statutory rights must be signed by both the minor and their attorney. To ensure the finality of a dismissal or settlement involving a minor, practitioners must strictly adhere to this dual-signature requirement."
Richardson v. The State of Texas
COA02
In Richardson v. State, the defendant challenged (among other issues) the court costs assessed after his convictions, arguing that the district clerk’s bill of costs conflicted with the trial court’s oral pronouncement that costs would not be payable until his release from TDCJ confinement. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals rejected Richardson’s ineffective-assistance claims under Strickland, but addressed the costs dispute by applying the rule that when a written judgment or ministerial clerk cost bill conflicts with the trial court’s oral pronouncement made in the defendant’s presence, the oral pronouncement controls. The court also reviewed the bill of costs for record support and found a $55 subpoena service fee was unsupported. The court affirmed the convictions, modified the judgment to delete the unsupported subpoena fee, and further modified the judgment/bill of costs to state that court costs are not payable until Richardson is released from confinement, consistent with the trial court’s oral ruling.
Litigation Takeaway
"In enforcement and contempt cases—especially when someone is jailed—don’t let boilerplate orders or an auto-generated clerk bill of costs undo what the judge said on the record. If the court orally waives or defers fees/costs, ensure the written order and commitment match; otherwise move to correct/modify because the oral pronouncement controls and unsupported cost items can be struck."
Dennis Maurice Jones v. The State of Texas
COA02
In Jones v. State, the defendant sought to introduce his mother’s testimony about his mental-health history during an aggravated-assault trial. When the State objected on relevance, defense counsel expressly told the trial court the testimony was offered only to support an insanity defense and “not attempting to get any sort of lesser included reckless charge.” The trial court excluded the testimony. On appeal, Jones argued the exclusion was error because the evidence would have supported a lesser-included offense instruction. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a) and the “matching” preservation doctrine (Clark v. State), holding the appellate complaint did not match what was requested at trial. Because counsel affirmatively disclaimed the lesser-included theory, the trial court was never asked to rule on admissibility for that purpose and there was no preserved error to review. The court affirmed the conviction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not “narrow-proffer” yourself into an appellate waiver. If evidence is relevant to multiple theories (e.g., best interest, statutory presumptions, significant impairment, danger), state all applicable grounds and avoid affirmative disclaimers like “not for X.” Appellate courts will hold you to the exact theory presented to the trial judge, and a trial-level disclaimer can permanently foreclose a later appeal."
John C. Campbell v. Medical Imaging Consultants, LLP
COA12
John Campbell, a radiologist, sued his former employer for breaching a non-disparagement clause in their separation agreement after he was passed over for a job at a different medical group. Campbell alleged that a negative comment regarding his "personality issues" from a former partner caused him to lose the position. The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed a no-evidence summary judgment against Campbell, ruling that he failed to prove causation. The court found that Campbell's theory relied on "inference stacking"—the speculative assumption that he would have successfully completed a multi-step interview process and received a unanimous hiring vote but for the alleged disparagement.
Litigation Takeaway
"To recover damages for the breach of a non-disparagement clause, it is not enough to prove a negative comment was made; you must provide direct evidence that the disparagement was the 'but-for' cause of a lost job or contract, rather than relying on a chain of speculative inferences about a third party's hiring process."
In the Interest of M.L.L., A.M.L., and B.F.L., Children
COA07
In a parental termination proceeding, a mother sought to introduce evidence of events occurring prior to a 2018 divorce decree. The trial court excluded this evidence, citing res judicata. On appeal, the mother argued this exclusion was improper. The Seventh Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1 and Texas Rule of Evidence 103(a), which require a party to preserve error by making an "offer of proof" when evidence is excluded. The court held that because the mother failed to make an offer of proof regarding what the excluded testimony would have shown, the appellate court could not conduct a harm analysis. Consequently, the mother waived her right to challenge the exclusion, and the termination of her parental rights was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a trial court excludes evidence, simply objecting is not enough; you must make a formal or informal 'offer of proof' for the record to show the appellate court exactly what that evidence would have been and why its exclusion was harmful."
In re Hector Hernandez
COA08
After obtaining a writ of execution to recover property, Hector Hernandez filed a petition for writ of mandamus directly with the El Paso Court of Appeals because the County Sheriff refused to enforce the writ. The Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Government Code § 22.221(b), which limits its original mandamus jurisdiction to actions against specific judges, not executive officials like sheriffs. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to compel a sheriff to act unless such an order was necessary to protect the court's own jurisdiction. Because Hernandez had not first filed a mandamus action against the sheriff in a district court, the appellate court dismissed the petition.
Litigation Takeaway
"You cannot "leapfrog" the trial court when a sheriff or constable refuses to execute a writ. To compel a county official to perform a ministerial duty, you must first file a petition for writ of mandamus in the district court; filing directly in the court of appeals will result in a jurisdictional dismissal."
In the Interest of K.K. and K.K., Children
COA12
In this parental termination case, the appellant (J.K.) filed a notice of appeal six days after the mandatory 20-day deadline for accelerated appeals. Although the notice was filed within the 15-day 'grace period' allowed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3, the Twelfth Court of Appeals notified J.K. that a 'reasonable explanation' for the delay was required to maintain jurisdiction. Because the appellant failed to respond to the court’s inquiry or provide any explanation for the late filing, the court held it was powerless to grant an extension. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, emphasizing that procedural rules apply equally to pro se litigants and licensed attorneys.
Litigation Takeaway
"Appellate deadlines in parental termination cases are extremely strict and accelerated; missing the 20-day filing window—and failing to provide a prompt, reasonable explanation for the delay—will result in the permanent loss of your right to appeal."
RANCHO DE LOS ARBOLES LLC AND ELLEN EAKIN v. TOWN OF CROSS ROADS, TX
COA02
Rancho De Los Arboles LLC and its principal sued the Town of Cross Roads after the Town began enforcing zoning ordinances to shut down their long-running short‑term rental use. Rancho sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging Texas-constitutional property violations (including takings/due course of law theories) and asserting ultra vires conduct. The Town filed a plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity, and the trial court dismissed all claims with prejudice. Applying the Miranda plea-to-the-jurisdiction framework, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals explained that a dismissal with prejudice is proper only when the pleadings or record affirmatively negate jurisdiction as a matter of law (i.e., the defect is incurable). Where the problem is merely insufficient pleading of jurisdictional facts that could be cured by amendment—such as failing to plead takings elements with specificity or failing to name the proper officials for an ultra vires claim—the plaintiff must be given a chance to replead. The court affirmed dismissal of those claims that were jurisdictionally barred on the record, but held the trial court reversibly erred by dismissing the remainder with prejudice without allowing Rancho an opportunity to amend. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the potentially curable constitutional and ultra vires theories.
Litigation Takeaway
"A plea to the jurisdiction is not automatically a “case killer.” If governmental immunity is raised and your petition is merely thin—not incurably barred—push hard for the right to amend. Preserve error by requesting leave to replead and objecting to any “with prejudice” dismissal, especially when asserting constitutional property/takings or ultra vires claims tied to real estate value in a divorce-related crossover dispute."