Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1447 opinions found
In re 7-Eleven, Inc.
COA13
In this case, a trial court failed to rule on a Rule 91a motion to dismiss "baseless claims" for several months following a hearing. The Relators sought mandamus relief to compel a ruling. The Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, noting that while its 45-day deadline for rulings is directory rather than jurisdictional, the rule's core purpose is the "early and speedy dismissal" of meritless litigation. The court found that because the motion was properly heard and the delay was objectively unreasonable, the trial court's inaction constituted an abuse of discretion. The court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to issue a ruling on the motion.
Litigation Takeaway
"Trial courts cannot use a 'pocket veto' to avoid ruling on Rule 91a motions to dismiss. If a judge refuses to rule on a motion to dismiss baseless claims within a reasonable time after a hearing, mandamus is an available tool to force a decision and prune frivolous 'tort-crossover' claims from family law litigation."
York v. York
COA13
In York v. York, a mother sued her son and daughter-in-law after they convinced her to sell her home and provide over $119,000 to build a 'granny flat' on their property, only to divert the funds for their own home improvements and lock her out. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a $122,550 judgment in favor of the mother, focusing on the jury's finding of fraud. The court analyzed the timing of the financial transactions—specifically that the children contracted for their own renovations within days of receiving the mother's money—and concluded there was sufficient evidence that the children never intended to fulfill their promises. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1, the court held that because the fraud finding independently supported the full damages award, it was unnecessary to review the additional claims of breach of contract and promissory estoppel.
Litigation Takeaway
"In multi-generational property disputes, pleading and proving fraud is a powerful strategy; if a judgment is supported by a robust fraud finding, an appellate court can affirm the entire award without even considering more technical contract-based defenses."
Gerardo Solis III v. State
COA13
In *Solis v. State*, a defendant's counsel raised a suggestion of incompetency during a revocation hearing, supported by testimony of the defendant's mental regression and inability to assist in his defense. The trial court dismissed these concerns after a brief colloquy where the defendant answered basic questions clearly, concluding he was competent. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a trial court abuses its discretion when it weighs evidence of competency against evidence of incompetency during an informal inquiry. The court clarified that if there is 'some evidence' (more than a scintilla) from any source suggesting incompetency, the trial court must stay the proceedings and appoint an expert rather than relying on its own courtroom observations.
Litigation Takeaway
"A judge’s 'vibes check' or a party's polite courtroom demeanor cannot override evidence of mental incapacity; if there is even a scintilla of evidence that a party cannot rationally assist their counsel, the court is legally required to halt proceedings and appoint a competency expert."
Smith v. State
COA14
In Smith v. State, the defendant challenged his convictions for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child, arguing that the evidence was insufficient because the child complainant used colloquial terms rather than proving 'penetration' and partially recanted at trial. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the Texas Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, determining that the state is only required to prove 'contact' rather than 'penetration' for the charged offenses. The court held that a child's testimony regarding anatomical placement and physical pain allows a jury to rationally infer contact, and that 'outcry' hearsay testimony remains admissible under Article 38.072 even if the child contradicts those statements at trial. The court affirmed the convictions, ruling that such contradictions go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.
Litigation Takeaway
"To prove sexual abuse in a legal proceeding, you do not need medical evidence of penetration or clinical terminology from the child; testimony establishing 'contact' is sufficient. Furthermore, a child’s trial-day recantation or hesitation does not bar the admission of their initial, spontaneous outcry statements, which can be used to sustain findings of abuse even in the absence of physical trauma."
City of Houston v. Ezzeddine
COA14
In City of Houston v. Ezzeddine, the 14th Court of Appeals addressed whether conclusory labels such as "inadequate" or "misleading" are sufficient to survive a Rule 91a motion to dismiss. The case involved a fatal collision where the plaintiffs alleged that temporary traffic signage was insufficient but failed to provide specific factual details regarding the signs' appearance or placement. When challenged, the plaintiffs argued they could not provide more detail because discovery had not yet opened. The court rejected this "discovery trap" defense, clarifying that Rule 91a is a gatekeeping mechanism designed to dispose of meritless claims before discovery costs are incurred. The court held that because the plaintiffs provided only legal conclusions and descriptors rather than essential factual allegations, the claims had no basis in law and must be dismissed with prejudice.
Litigation Takeaway
"A plaintiff cannot avoid a Rule 91a dismissal by claiming they need discovery to uncover the facts necessary to support their claim. To survive a motion to dismiss in Texas, a petition must contain specific factual predicates—the 'who, what, where, and when'—rather than mere legal labels or adjectives. In family law, this is a powerful tool to shut down vague allegations of fraud or waste before expensive forensic accounting or depositions begin."
Robinson v. State
COA01
In Robinson v. State, a defendant convicted of online solicitation of a minor argued he was entitled to a 'within-three-years' statutory defense because the undercover officer he solicited was an adult close to his own age. The First Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Penal Code § 33.021, which defines a 'minor' to include individuals the actor believes to be under 17. The court held that the applicability of the age-gap defense is determined by the defendant's subjective belief regarding the victim's age—the 'persona'—rather than the officer's actual biological age. Because the defendant believed he was soliciting a 15-year-old, he was not entitled to the defense.
Litigation Takeaway
"A parent's intent to solicit a minor is the legally operative fact in determining the risk they pose to children; they cannot use the 'actual age' of an undercover officer as a technicality to minimize their conduct or protect their custody rights in family court."
Roger Allan Smith v. State
COA14
Roger Allan Smith appealed his conviction for the continuous sexual abuse of a child, arguing that the victim's testimony was too vague to satisfy the statutory requirement that at least two acts occurred over a 30-day period. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed whether a rational jury could infer the necessary duration from testimony describing the frequency of abuse rather than specific dates. The court held that evidence of a regular pattern—specifically testimony that abuse occurred "every couple of weeks to a month" beginning near a specific birthday—is legally sufficient to establish the 30-day window, even if the witness lacks "autobiographical memories" of each specific instance.
Litigation Takeaway
"To establish a "pattern of abuse" in SAPCR or Protective Order litigation, practitioners do not need to prove specific dates for every act. By establishing an "anchor date" (such as a holiday or birthday) and a consistent "frequency" (such as "every weekend"), a party can legally satisfy the evidentiary burden for a pattern of conduct through "evidentiary math.""
MacIvor v. Zuehl Airport Flying Community Owners Association, Inc.
COA06
In a dispute over property assessments, a homeowners association sought to compel arbitration based on a 2015 resolution that purportedly amended the subdivision's covenants. The property owner challenged the existence of the agreement, arguing the amendment was never validly adopted. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order compelling arbitration, holding that the party moving for arbitration bears the initial evidentiary burden to prove the existence of a valid agreement under traditional contract principles. Because the association failed to provide evidence that the amendment was legally executed, the "presumption" favoring arbitration was never triggered, and the resulting arbitration award was declared void.
Litigation Takeaway
"The "strong policy favoring arbitration" does not excuse a party from proving that a contract actually exists. If a spouse or business partner attempts to enforce an arbitration clause in a modified agreement, trust amendment, or draft settlement, you can block the referral to arbitration by challenging the legal formation of that document. The court must confirm the agreement's existence before the arbitrator can take over."
Memorial Hermann Health System v. John Doe
COA14
After a patient alleged sexual assault at a Memorial Hermann facility, the health system challenged the sufficiency of the required expert report under the Texas Medical Liability Act. The plaintiff argued a 'Catch-22': they could not provide specific facts about the hospital's internal failures because statutory law stays discovery until a report is filed. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed Section 74.351(s) and held that the discovery stay does not excuse an expert from providing a non-conclusory basis for a breach. The court held that the expert must instead rely on external evidence, such as detailed interviews with the claimant, to bridge the information gap. Because the expert in this case relied on the mere occurrence of the assault as proof of a breach, the court reversed the trial court and dismissed the claims.
Litigation Takeaway
"In institutional abuse cases involving children or vulnerable adults, the lack of access to a facility’s internal records is no excuse for a vague expert report. To survive a motion to dismiss, practitioners must front-load their investigation by extracting every possible factual detail from the client about the facility's environment—such as staffing levels, lighting, and security presence—to provide the expert with a factual foundation for their opinions."
Elborno v. State
COA14
In Elborno v. State, a defendant challenged his ten-year sentence because the trial court failed to offer him the right of allocution—the opportunity to personally plead for mercy or identify legal bars to sentencing. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed both the common law right to mitigation and the statutory requirements under Article 42.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that the common law right to allocution is forfeited if a defendant fails to object at the time of sentencing. Additionally, the court ruled that while the trial court is statutorily required to ask if there is any reason sentence should not be pronounced, the failure to do so is harmless error unless the defendant can show that a specific legal bar (pardon, incompetency, or mistaken identity) actually applied.
Litigation Takeaway
"In quasi-criminal family law enforcement proceedings, the right to speak in mitigation before being sentenced to jail is a 'use it or lose it' right; counsel must object immediately if a judge moves to pronounce confinement without providing an opportunity for allocution, or the issue is waived for appeal."