Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1447 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 INTEREST OF T.F., A CHILD
COA02
In this case, a father appealed the termination of his parental rights. His court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, stating that after a thorough review of the record, there were no valid legal grounds for an appeal, and simultaneously moved to withdraw as counsel. The Second Court of Appeals performed its own independent review of the record and agreed that the appeal was frivolous, affirming the trial court's termination order. However, the court denied the attorney's motion to withdraw. Applying the Texas Supreme Court's standard from In re P.M., the court held that an appointed attorney’s duty in a termination case continues through the filing of a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court, and the mere fact that an appeal is frivolous does not constitute 'good cause' to allow an attorney to withdraw.
Litigation Takeaway
"In parental termination cases, an appointed attorney’s obligation to their client is extensive; filing an Anders brief due to a lack of merit does not automatically permit the attorney to withdraw. Counsel must remain on the case through the Texas Supreme Court stage unless they can demonstrate specific 'good cause'—such as a conflict of interest—that is independent of the appeal's lack of merit."
Jonathan Humber v. City of Palestine
COA12
In Humber v. City of Palestine, the appellant filed a motion for new trial 32 days after the trial court signed the final judgment. The appellant later filed a notice of appeal nearly three months after the judgment, assuming the post-judgment motion had extended the appellate deadline. The Twelfth Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, which requires a "timely" post-judgment motion to extend the filing deadline for a notice of appeal from 30 to 90 days. The court held that an untimely motion for new trial is a nullity for purposes of the appellate timetable and does not extend the court's jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"A motion for new trial must be filed within 30 days of the date the judge signs the order to extend the appellate deadline; filing even one day late means your notice of appeal remains due 30 days from the judgment, potentially terminating your right to appeal."
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 Juan Pardo
COA13
In this mandamus proceeding, Relator Juan Pardo sought to vacate trial court orders for his arrest via ex parte writs of attachment. Although Pardo was represented by two attorneys of record, he filed the petition pro se. The Real Party in Interest moved to dismiss, arguing that Texas law prohibits 'hybrid representation.' The Thirteenth Court of Appeals agreed, holding that a party in a civil case cannot represent themselves while concurrently being represented by counsel. Because the petition was procedurally improper, the court dismissed it without prejudice and lifted a previously granted emergency stay, effectively exposing the Relator to the trial court's enforcement orders.
Litigation Takeaway
"Pro se filings made by a party who is still represented by counsel of record are considered a procedural nullity. Clients must formalize the termination of their legal representation before attempting to file original proceedings independently, or they risk immediate dismissal and the loss of emergency stays."
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 D.J., A CHILD, Appellant
COA05
After losing his job, a father sought to terminate his child support obligation but refused to produce discovery documents regarding his retirement accounts and foreign property interests. The trial court granted a directed verdict against him, denying the modification and imposing a $4,800 discovery sanction. The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the modification, holding that a party seeking to change support must provide full financial transparency to allow the court to calculate "net resources." However, the court reversed the monetary sanction because the trial record lacked specific evidence, such as attorney fee invoices or testimony, to justify the $4,800 amount.
Litigation Takeaway
"Transparency is mandatory in support modification cases; losing your primary income does not excuse you from disclosing your broader financial estate. Additionally, any party seeking discovery sanctions must ensure the record contains specific evidentiary proof linking the amount of the sanction to the actual costs or fees incurred."
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."
EDWARD GENE MOODY JR., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
COA02
In Moody v. State, the defendant challenged a felony DWI conviction, arguing (1) the search-warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause for a compelled blood draw and (2) the State failed to prove the two prior DWI convictions (“jurisdictional priors”) required to elevate the offense to a felony. Applying the highly deferential totality-of-the-circumstances review and the “four corners” rule, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held the magistrate had a substantial basis to find probable cause where the affidavit described a vehicle accident, witness reports that the defendant smelled of alcohol and threw beer cans into a ditch, the officer’s own odor-of-alcohol observation, failed field sobriety tests, and the defendant’s admission he drank two 24-ounce beers. The court also held the evidence was legally sufficient to link Moody to the 1995 and 2022 DWI judgments for enhancement purposes; remoteness did not undermine the priors’ validity, and the State provided documentation and corroborating testimony connecting Moody to those convictions. The court affirmed the felony DWI conviction and sentence.
Litigation Takeaway
"In custody and SAPCR cases, don’t dismiss “old” alcohol-related convictions or a parent’s calm demeanor during an incident. Build an endangerment narrative using (1) certified priors (even decades old) and (2) contemporaneous, concrete “four corners” facts from police/fire/witness reports (accident details, odor, discarded containers, refusals, admissions) to support testing requests and restrictions like supervised visitation."
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."