Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1447 opinions found
Wilson v. State
COA03
In *Wilson v. State*, a defendant attempted to challenge a decades-old murder conviction by filing a civil "Petition for Declaratory Judgment," claiming the state breached his plea agreement. The Third Court of Appeals looked past the civil labels and analyzed the substance of the pleading, determining it was actually a collateral attack on a final judgment. The court held that because Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive remedy for post-conviction relief, the defendant could not use the Declaratory Judgment Act to bypass these requirements. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"The substance of a legal filing matters more than its title. Parties cannot use a "Declaratory Judgment" action to end-run the strict requirements for challenging a final order. If the relief sought is to void or alter a final decree, you must follow the specific statutory procedures (like a Bill of Review or an enforcement action) rather than seeking a new civil judgment."
McKissick v. State
COA11
After Johnathan McKissick was convicted of injury to a child, he appealed on the grounds of a 'material variance' because the child's name in the indictment (his birth name) differed from the name proven at trial (his adopted name). The Eleventh Court of Appeals analyzed whether this discrepancy prejudiced the defendant's defense or created a risk of double jeopardy under the Gollihar framework. The court held that the variance was immaterial because the defendant was not surprised by the identity of the victim and his defense was not hindered. Additionally, the court found no violation of discovery mandates under the Michael Morton Act, as the defendant had signed a discovery waiver and could not prove the State intentionally suppressed evidence discovered after the trial.
Litigation Takeaway
"A child's legal name change resulting from an adoption or termination proceeding does not create a 'material variance' that would invalidate a parallel criminal conviction, provided the defendant has notice of the victim's identity and is not prejudiced in their defense."
In re Mattr US Inc.
COA11
The Eleventh Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief, affirming a trial court's refusal to enforce a forum-selection clause and its denial of jurisdictional discovery. The case involved a Canadian entity attempting to move a dispute to Alberta based on unsigned 'Order Acknowledgments.' The court reasoned that because the documents specifically required a signature as the method of acceptance, the lack of a signature meant no agreement was formed. Furthermore, the court held that internal financial authorizations (AFEs) were not discoverable because contract formation depends on objective manifestations of intent shared between parties, not private internal budgeting documents.
Litigation Takeaway
"An unsigned contract cannot typically enforce a forum-selection clause if the document itself specifies a signature is required for acceptance. Additionally, internal financial documents and 'budgeting' data are generally shielded from discovery in contract disputes because they do not constitute objective evidence of what the parties communicated to one another."
Guardiola v. Rodriguez
COA05
In Guardiola v. Rodriguez, a resident sought to enjoin an eviction proceeding pending the resolution of a separate title dispute. The trial court denied the request for a permanent injunction following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the resident failed to provide the reporter’s record (the official transcript) of that hearing. The Dallas Court of Appeals analyzed the 'presumption of regularity,' which requires appellate courts to assume that any evidence presented at a hearing supported the trial court's judgment if a transcript is not provided. Because there was no record to review for an abuse of discretion, the court affirmed the trial court’s ruling and noted that the underlying title dispute had already been resolved, making the injunction request moot.
Litigation Takeaway
"An appeal of an evidentiary ruling is 'dead on arrival' without a reporter’s record. If you are seeking to stay an eviction or property sale, you must ensure a court reporter transcribes the hearing and that you timely request the record for appeal; otherwise, the appellate court will legally presume the trial judge made the right decision."
Alazzawi v. Algharrawi
COA08
In Alazzawi v. Algharrawi, a husband appealed a divorce decree and protective order, only to discover that the court reporter's stenographic files were corrupted and the Zoom recording of the trial failed to capture the audible English translations of his wife’s Arabic testimony. The Eighth Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(f), which requires a new trial if a significant portion of the record is lost through no fault of the appellant and is necessary to the appeal. Because the missing testimony was the primary evidence for the trial court’s judgment and the parties could not agree on a replacement translation, the court held that a mandatory new trial was required, reversing the original judgment and remanding the cause.
Litigation Takeaway
"Technical failures during remote hearings—especially those involving foreign language interpreters—can be fatal to a judgment; if the official English translation is not clearly recorded and the parties cannot agree on a reconstruction, a complete "do-over" of the trial is mandatory."
D. F. and W. C. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
COA03
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services sought to terminate the parental rights of a mother, who suffered from chronic methamphetamine relapse and homelessness, and a father, who was serving a life sentence in federal prison for violent racketeering and attempted murder. The trial court ordered termination, which both parents appealed. The Third Court of Appeals analyzed the mother’s 'course of conduct' under Texas Family Code Section 161.001, finding that her history of drug use and instability created an endangering environment. For the father, the court determined that his voluntary criminal acts leading to life imprisonment effectively precluded him from providing stability. Applying the Holley factors, the court held that termination was in the children’s best interest due to the parents' inability to provide for the children's emotional and physical needs compared to the stability of their current placement.
Litigation Takeaway
"Stability is the central pillar of a 'best interest' analysis; a parent’s historical 'course of conduct'—such as repeated drug relapse or long-term incarceration for violent crimes—can satisfy endangerment findings even in the absence of a single specific injury to the child. Practitioners should utilize therapeutic testimony to demonstrate the lack of a parental bond and the child's need for permanence to overcome defenses from incarcerated or addicted parents."
Carroll v. Perla Dental
COA05
In Carroll v. Perla Dental, a plaintiff sued a dental provider in a Dallas County justice court for malpractice but failed to serve a mandatory expert report within the 120-day statutory window required by Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. After the justice court dismissed the case, the plaintiff appealed to a county court at law, arguing that the de novo appeal reset her filing deadlines and attempting to re-characterize her claims as a "breach of fiduciary duty" to avoid the expert report requirement. The Dallas Court of Appeals held that justice courts possess subject-matter jurisdiction over fiduciary duty and healthcare liability claims within their monetary limits. Crucially, the court ruled that a de novo appeal does not restart the expert report clock; a procedural default in the justice court remains fatal on appeal. Additionally, the court prevented the plaintiff from "label-switching," holding that claims based on professional services remain healthcare liability claims regardless of the terminology used in the pleadings.
Litigation Takeaway
"Justice courts are not "procedural-lite" forums; statutory expert report deadlines apply with full force and are not reset by a de novo appeal. If you fail to meet mandatory requirements in small claims court, an appeal will not save your case from dismissal and potential attorney's fee awards."
David and Rebecca Bowen v. Texas Fair Plan Association
COA01
In *Bowen v. Texas Fair Plan Association*, homeowners sued their insurance provider following a claim denial. The insurer filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, and the homeowners responded with affidavits from two experts. However, the homeowners had previously filed an amended expert designation that omitted these specific experts. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6, determining that an amended designation supersedes previous lists; by omitting the experts, the homeowners effectively de-designated them. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by striking the expert affidavits and affirming a take-nothing summary judgment, as the remaining evidence was unauthenticated and insufficient to create a fact issue.
Litigation Takeaway
"Always cross-reference your summary judgment evidence with your most recent Rule 194.2 expert designations; amending your witness list to "clean up" for trial can accidentally de-designate the experts you need to survive a no-evidence motion, resulting in the exclusion of their testimony."
Ex Parte Jeffrey Lynn Davis
COA05
In Ex Parte Davis, the Dallas Court of Appeals addressed whether a witness recantation is sufficient to establish a claim of 'actual innocence' following a voluntary guilty plea. Jeffrey Lynn Davis sought to overturn a decades-old sexual assault conviction after the victim provided a statement recanting her allegations. The court analyzed the claim under the 'Herrera' standard, which requires an applicant to present newly discovered evidence that affirmatively establishes innocence and proves by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted them. The court emphasized that overcoming a voluntary guilty plea is a 'Herculean task' and that appellate courts must afford near-total deference to a trial court's credibility findings. Ultimately, the court held that the recantation did not outweigh the original investigative evidence and Davis's own judicial confession, affirming the denial of the writ.
Litigation Takeaway
"A criminal conviction based on a voluntary guilty plea is nearly impossible to 'undo' for family law purposes, even if a victim later recants their testimony. In high-conflict custody or divorce cases, attorneys should rely on the finality of these convictions to establish fitness and 'best interest' arguments, as Texas courts set an extremely high evidentiary bar—the 'Herculean task'—for any collateral attack on a prior plea."
Bonterra at Cross Creek Ranch Community Association, Inc. v. Laughlin
COA01
After a homeowner died from Legionnaire’s Disease allegedly contracted at a community pool, her heirs filed wrongful death and survival claims against the developers. The developers moved to compel arbitration based on a broad clause in the residential purchase agreement that invoked the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court analyzed whether the FAA preempted the Texas Arbitration Act’s (TAA) requirement that an attorney must sign arbitration agreements for personal injury claims. The court held that the FAA preemption applied, the claims were 'factually intertwined' with the purchase agreement, and the decedent’s agreement to arbitrate bound her heirs in derivative tort actions.
Litigation Takeaway
"Broad arbitration clauses in property or business contracts governed by the FAA can sweep 'crossover' personal injury and wrongful death claims into arbitration, binding both the signatories and their heirs, even if the agreement lacks the attorney signatures typically required by the Texas Arbitration Act."