Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1262 opinions found
ATC Indoor DAS LLC v. MM CCM 48M Leasing, LLC and MM CCM 48M, LLC
COA05
A commercial tenant sued its landlord for breaching a long-term lease after the landlord bought a distressed shopping mall and unilaterally terminated the lease to close and redevelop the property. The landlord obtained summary judgment by asserting the affirmative defense of commercial impracticability, arguing the lease’s “basic assumption” (a functioning mall with patrons) had failed. The Dallas Court of Appeals applied Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 261 as used in Texas: impracticability requires an event that makes performance objectively impracticable, the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract, and the event must be unforeseeable. The court emphasized that impracticability is not mere unprofitability and focused on foreseeability: the landlord purchased the mall as a distressed property intending redevelopment, making closure and demolition foreseeable (and effectively self-created). Because the closure was not an unforeseeable event and did not render performance objectively impossible, the defense failed. The court reversed the summary judgment, rendered judgment that the landlord breached the lease, and remanded for determination of damages and attorney’s fees.
Litigation Takeaway
"“My business failed” or “the deal stopped making economic sense” is usually not a legal excuse to dodge a settlement or property-division obligation. To prove impracticability under Texas law, the obligor must show a truly unforeseeable event that makes performance objectively impossible—not merely financially painful or unprofitable—especially where the risk was known, foreseeable, or the hardship was the party’s own strategic choice."
Moir Watershed Services, LLC v. Law Office of Heath Gurinsky, PLLC and Spencer Hofmann
COA10
In Moir Watershed Servs., LLC v. Law Office of Heath Gurinsky, PLLC, a Texas-based company sued a New York law firm in a Texas court for legal malpractice and breach of contract. The New York firm challenged the lawsuit, arguing that Texas courts lacked personal jurisdiction over them since they were based in New York and the work was performed there. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case, holding that merely entering into a contract with a Texas resident does not establish the 'purposeful availment' necessary for jurisdiction. The court concluded that because the legal services were performed outside of Texas and the defendants did not specifically target the Texas market, they lacked the minimum contacts required to be sued in a Texas forum.
Litigation Takeaway
"Hiring an out-of-state attorney or expert for your legal matter does not guarantee you can sue them in Texas if something goes wrong. If their work is performed in their home state and they haven't purposefully reached into Texas to conduct business, you may be forced to litigate any malpractice or fee disputes in their jurisdiction, significantly increasing your costs and risks."
Valerie Lauren Mata v. The State of Texas
COA01
In Mata v. State, the defendant pleaded guilty to improper relationship with a student and received a five-year sentence, then attempted to appeal despite having signed a waiver of appeal. The First Court of Appeals analyzed whether it had jurisdiction in light of that waiver where sentencing was left to the trial court (i.e., not a fixed-sentence plea bargain). Applying Ex parte Broadway and Carson, the court treated the waiver as a bargained-for exchange and held it is enforceable when supported by consideration—here, the State’s waiver of its right to a jury trial—even without an agreed sentence. Because the trial court’s certification correctly reflected that Mata had no right of appeal, the appellate court was required to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"A properly documented criminal appellate waiver can make a conviction effectively “final” immediately, eliminating appellate-delay arguments in related family cases. In termination or custody litigation involving criminal conduct, obtain the clerk’s record and certification to confirm (1) a signed waiver, and (2) consideration (e.g., the State waived a jury). Then use the dismissal/waiver to oppose stays and to support termination grounds or evidentiary finality arguments."
In The Interest of G.M.D. & V.D., Children And In The Interest of Z.J.M., A Child
COA01
In this termination of parental rights case, a mother appealed the trial court's decision to end her legal relationship with three of her children following a history of chronic substance abuse and mental health crises. The mother challenged only one of the five legal grounds (predicate acts) cited by the trial court for termination. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, explaining that under Texas law, an appellant must challenge every predicate ground found by the trial court; otherwise, the unchallenged grounds stand as sufficient. The court then applied the 'Holley' factors to the evidence—including the mother's history of heroin and methamphetamine use and the children's success in stable foster placements—and concluded that termination was clearly in the children's best interest.
Litigation Takeaway
"When appealing a termination of parental rights, it is a procedural necessity to challenge every single 'predicate ground' listed in the trial court's order; failure to contest even one ground can result in an automatic loss on that portion of the appeal. Additionally, historical evidence of substance abuse and mental health instability continues to be a primary driver in 'best interest' determinations by Texas courts."
Ronald Adams a/k/a Ron Adams v. Gary Upshaw
COA05
The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s refusal to dismiss a defamation lawsuit under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). The dispute arose after the president of a youth sports organization sent communications regarding the failure to conduct background checks on a sex offender, identifying the plaintiff as the organization's representative during the relevant period. The court analyzed the case under the TCPA framework, determining that child safety in sports is a "matter of public concern," which shifted the burden to the plaintiff to prove his case with "clear and specific evidence." Because the plaintiff failed to meet this heightened evidentiary threshold for all elements of defamation, the court held the suit must be dismissed and remanded the case for an award of attorney's fees to the defendant.
Litigation Takeaway
"In 'crossover' defamation suits involving child safety or parental fitness, the TCPA is a powerful defensive shield. Plaintiffs cannot rely on vague allegations; they must provide specific, high-quality evidence at the very start of the case or face mandatory dismissal and the obligation to pay the defendant’s legal fees."
Opinion by Justice Rivas-Molloy
COA01
In a delinquent-tax foreclosure case, Wanda Joyce Smith appeared at a trial setting and testified the judge postponed the matter to conduct a title search and told her a new hearing would be set, so she left expecting further notice. The court later signed a “final” judgment without notifying her of any new setting, leading to foreclosure and sale of the property; Smith learned of the judgment months later during eviction proceedings and filed a bill of review to set aside the judgment for lack of notice/due process. The trial court granted summary judgment against the bill of review and also disposed of Smith’s newly pleaded counterclaims and third-party claims. On appeal, the court applied the traditional bill-of-review elements (meritorious defense; prevented by fraud/accident/wrongful act or official mistake; unmixed with petitioner’s negligence) and the due-process framework of Caldwell v. Barnes for lack of service/notice. The court held Smith’s affidavit testimony that the trial court represented a future hearing would be set, yet later entered judgment without further notice, raised a genuine issue of material fact on “official mistake” and lack of negligence, making summary judgment improper on the bill of review. Separately, relying on the principle that a bill of review is a narrow, independent equitable proceeding limited to vacating or denying the challenged judgment, the court held the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate new counterclaims and third-party claims before the underlying judgment was set aside; those claims were dismissed as premature.
Litigation Takeaway
"A bill of review is a two-step, narrow remedy: first you must prove the prior judgment should be vacated (often by showing lack of notice tied to “official mistake”); only after vacatur can the court reach the underlying merits or any new claims. If the petitioner offers specific testimony that the court/court staff said the case was “reset” or a new setting would be provided, that evidence can defeat summary judgment. If the bill of review pleading tries to bundle in new tort/contract/property claims or add new parties, move to dismiss them—jurisdiction is limited until the judgment is actually set aside."
In the Interest of G.M.D. & V.D., Children and In the Interest of Z.J.M., A Child
COA01
The First Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's decision to terminate a mother’s parental rights to her three children. The case centered on the mother's long history of heroin addiction and untreated mental health crises, including a suicide attempt occurring while the children were present. In its analysis, the appellate court first determined that because the mother failed to challenge every legal "predicate ground" cited by the trial court in her appeal, those unchallenged findings became binding. Furthermore, applying the 'Holley' factors, the court found that the mother's recurring drug relapses and mental instability posed a significant danger to the children, making termination necessary for their safety and best interests.
Litigation Takeaway
"When appealing a termination of parental rights, an appellant must challenge every individual predicate ground found by the trial court; failing to contest even one ground can lead to an automatic affirmance. Additionally, evidence of chronic substance abuse and untreated mental illness remains a powerful factor in establishing that termination is in a child's best interest."
Gutmann v. Hennig
COA13
In Gutmann v. Hennig, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals addressed a situation where a trial court's 'sua sponte' severance of a partial summary judgment created a 'two-front war,' forcing parties to litigate in both trial and appellate courts simultaneously. The Appellee, who had won the summary judgment, requested that the appellate court reverse his own victory and vacate the severance to save costs and promote judicial economy. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(c), which allows an appellate court to grant an appellee more favorable relief than the trial court did for 'just cause.' Finding that the parties' mutual desire for efficiency and the Appellant's lack of opposition constituted just cause, the court reversed the summary judgment without reaching the merits and vacated the severance order, effectively reconsolidating the case for a single trial.
Litigation Takeaway
"A 'win' in the form of a partial summary judgment can become a liability if a severance forces you to defend that win on appeal while simultaneously litigating the rest of the case at the trial level. If the costs of fragmented litigation outweigh the benefit of the judgment, parties can use Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(c) to seek a 'consensual remand'—reversing the summary judgment and vacating the severance to reconsolidate the estate's litigation into a single, more cost-effective proceeding."
In Re Michael Wayne Lowman
COA09
After being found in contempt for failing to sign property listing documents required by a divorce decree, Michael Lowman was sentenced to 180 days in jail. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of his confinement. However, by the time the Ninth Court of Appeals reviewed the case, Lowman had fully served his sentence and been released. The court analyzed the case under the mootness doctrine, noting that a writ of habeas corpus is a tool used specifically to challenge an existing restraint on liberty. Because Lowman was no longer confined, the court held that there was no longer a live controversy to resolve and dismissed the petition as moot.
Litigation Takeaway
"Habeas corpus is a race against the clock: if a client is jailed for contempt, you must immediately seek an emergency stay or a personal recognizance bond. If the client serves the full sentence before the appellate court rules, the case becomes moot, and you lose the chance to vacate a potentially void contempt order."
Adame v. The State of Texas
COA13
The defendant was convicted of animal cruelty after admitting to squeezing and stomping a pet cockatoo that died shortly thereafter. On appeal, the defendant argued the evidence was insufficient because the State failed to provide expert medical testimony or a necropsy to prove the cause of death, and claimed his admissions were unreliable due to his intoxication. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that expert testimony is unnecessary when an injury's effects are visually obvious to a layperson. The court further determined that a jury, as the sole judge of credibility, may rely on a defendant's inculpatory admissions even if they are made while intoxicated or contain factual inaccuracies.
Litigation Takeaway
"Expert veterinary testimony and formal necropsies are not required to prove animal cruelty in cases where the injury is obvious to a layperson. Family law practitioners can use this 'evidentiary shortcut' to more efficiently establish patterns of coercive control, family violence, or 'best interest' factors using only lay testimony, photos, and the opposing party's admissions."