Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1447 opinions found
In re Michael David Jones
COA10
The Tenth Court of Appeals dismissed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Michael David Jones, who sought immediate release from jail regarding criminal charges. The court analyzed the Texas Government Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, determining that intermediate appellate courts lack original jurisdiction over criminal habeas matters, as that power is reserved for the Court of Criminal Appeals, district courts, and county courts. The court held that while it has the authority to hear original habeas petitions in civil cases—such as family law contempt proceedings—it has no legal authority to reach the merits of a habeas claim arising from criminal detention.
Litigation Takeaway
"Understand the 'why' behind a client's incarceration before filing for relief. If a client is jailed for civil contempt (like unpaid child support), the Court of Appeals has original jurisdiction to hear a writ of habeas corpus. However, if the client faces criminal charges (like custodial interference), the writ must be filed in a trial court first. Filing in the wrong forum leads to a jurisdictional dismissal and keeps your client in jail longer."
Ronald L. Crawford, Jr., Appellant v. Yasser Aftab Sharif, Appellee
COA01
In a post-foreclosure eviction (forcible detainer), the occupant argued the foreclosure sale was fraudulent and that the trial court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the case necessarily involved title. The First Court of Appeals rejected that argument, explaining that Texas justice courts (and county courts on de novo appeal) have jurisdiction to decide only the right to immediate possession, not title, and that a challenge to foreclosure validity does not defeat jurisdiction unless possession and title are so intertwined that possession cannot be decided without first adjudicating title. Because the purchaser presented proof of the foreclosure purchase and notice to vacate, and the occupant did not show the title issues were inseparable from possession (and provided no reporter’s record), the courts could decide possession independently. The court affirmed the judgment awarding possession (and, given the absent record, presumed the evidence supported damages and attorney’s fees as well).
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas, you usually can’t stop an eviction by attacking the underlying foreclosure or transfer: forcible detainer is about immediate possession, not who ultimately owns title. For family-law “holdover spouse” situations, use justice-court eviction when a decree/transfer document provides an independent right to possession (often via tenancy-at-sufferance language), and don’t expect a separate title/decree attack to automatically stall removal."
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."
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."
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."
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."
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."
In Re Marisol Garza
COA13
In a contract dispute that lasted over eleven years, the defendant moved for dismissal for want of prosecution after a 46-month period of total inactivity by the plaintiff. The trial court denied the motion, but the Thirteenth Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief. The appellate court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a and the court's inherent power, determining that the burden to prosecute a case rests solely on the plaintiff. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion because the plaintiff failed to show good cause for the extensive delays, and the COVID-19 pandemic did not justify a nearly four-year lapse in activity.
Litigation Takeaway
"Don't let 'zombie' litigation linger; if an opposing party files a suit to secure temporary orders and then abandons the case for years, you can force a dismissal. The duty to move a case forward belongs entirely to the person who filed it, and even significant events like the COVID-19 pandemic do not excuse years of total inactivity."
In the Interest of I.N.A.M., a Child
COA08
In this custody case, a Mother lost her right to a jury trial after failing to appear in court on her scheduled trial date. Despite having previously requested a jury, her absence allowed the trial court to dismiss the jury panel and proceed with a bench hearing. Based on the Father's testimony and the Mother's history of non-compliance with court orders, the trial court named the Father sole managing conservator and restricted the Mother to supervised visitation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, ruling that under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 220, failing to appear for trial constitutes a waiver of the right to a jury, and the Father's unopposed evidence was sufficient to support the court's 'best interest' determination.
Litigation Takeaway
"Your presence at trial is mandatory to protect your rights; failing to show up—even if you have a pending jury request—allows the judge to immediately rule against you based solely on the evidence provided by the other side."
In the Interest of E.R.H., et al, Children
COA04
After a trial court terminated a father's parental rights to six children based on endangerment and failure to complete a service plan, the father appealed. His court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, stating that after a professional review of the record, there were no non-frivolous grounds for appeal. The Fourth Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record, evaluating whether 'clear and convincing' evidence supported the statutory termination grounds and the children's best interest. The court found the evidence of environmental endangerment and failure to comply with the service plan was sufficient to uphold the ruling, affirming the termination order.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a trial court record is thoroughly developed with clear and convincing evidence regarding child endangerment and a parent's failure to follow court-ordered service plans, the termination of parental rights is extremely difficult to overturn on appeal, even when a court-appointed attorney seeks a full review."