Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1447 opinions found
In the Interest of S.V.M. and V.I.M., Children
COA05
In In re S.V.M., the Dallas Court of Appeals upheld a divorce court’s decision to invalidate a premarital agreement after finding Wife did not sign it voluntarily under Texas Family Code section 4.006. The agreement was signed the day before the wedding after the parties had traveled for the ceremonies, and the appellate court emphasized that voluntariness is a fact-driven issue heavily dependent on witness credibility and the surrounding execution circumstances. The court also rejected Husband’s complaints about the refusal to make additional findings and about the property division, concluding that his requested findings were largely evidentiary or contrary to the trial court’s credibility determinations and that the record did not show disputed valuation evidence requiring more detailed findings under section 6.711. The court modified the decree only to delete unsupported language stating that Wife’s attorney’s fees were necessary for the support of Wife and the children, and otherwise affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Premarital agreements rise or fall not just on drafting, but on the execution story. If voluntariness is challenged, trial courts have broad room to credit testimony about wedding pressure, timing, lack of meaningful review, and unequal bargaining circumstances—and appellate courts will rarely disturb those credibility calls. For litigators, requests for additional findings should focus on true ultimate issues, not an attempt to relitigate witness credibility."
Harrison v. State
COA07
In Harrison v. State, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that a party waives an evidentiary complaint when, after previously making Rule 403 and 404(b) objections and obtaining a running objection, counsel later says "No objection" at the point the trial court requires the evidence to be re-offered for publication to the jury. The trial court had deferred final use of certain electronic evidence and expressly required a later ruling before the jury could see it. Because defense counsel affirmatively stated "No objection" at that later offer, the court held error was not preserved under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1. The court also stated that, even if preserved, the challenged evidence was sufficiently probative and closely connected to the charged conduct to survive Rule 403 review.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas trials, preservation is stage-specific: an earlier objection—even a running objection—may not protect you if the court defers admission, publication, or final ruling. When the exhibit comes back up, renew the objection on the record and do not say "No objection" unless you intend to waive the issue."
Koorasingh v. State
COA05
In Koorasingh v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals upheld convictions for child sexual assault and continuous family violence after the defendant argued the evidence was insufficient because the State did not prove the exact offense date alleged and did not separately prove the prosecutions were timely. The court applied the standard Texas "on or about" rule, holding that the State need not prove the precise date in the indictment so long as the evidence shows the conduct occurred before indictment and within any applicable limitations period. The court also held that limitations is an affirmative defense, not an element the State must prove in its case-in-chief, and because sexual assault of a child had no limitations period here, the absence of separate limitations proof did not undermine the convictions.
Litigation Takeaway
"Approximate dates usually do not defeat a case by themselves. If timing is not a statutory element or a properly raised defense, courts will treat date imprecision as a credibility issue rather than a legal-sufficiency failure. In family law cases involving abuse, family violence, or delayed disclosures, lawyers should distinguish between facts that must be proved and surplus timing language, while preserving true timeliness defenses expressly when timing actually matters."
Harrison v. State
COA07
In Harrison v. State, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that a defendant waived his Rules 403 and 404(b) complaints about pornography-related search-history, image, and video evidence by later telling the trial court he had 'No objection' when the same exhibits were reoffered for publication to the jury. Although defense counsel had initially made specific objections and obtained a running objection, the trial court later required any renewed offer of the exhibits to be brought back for a further ruling after additional predicate was laid. Because counsel did not renew the objections at that later stage—and instead affirmatively accepted the evidence—the court found error was not preserved under Rule 33.1(a). The court also explained that, even if preserved, the trial court would not have abused its discretion because the challenged evidence closely tracked the charged step-family relationship and was probative of intent rather than mere character conformity.
Litigation Takeaway
"A running objection is not bulletproof. If the court defers, conditions, or stages admission of evidence, treat each later offer, publication, or reuse as a fresh preservation moment. Never say 'No objection' to evidence you may want to challenge on appeal; instead, renew the prior objection and obtain a ruling."
Harrison v. State
COA07
In Harrison v. State, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that a defendant waived prior Rule 403 and 404(b) complaints about digital child-sex evidence when, after obtaining a running objection, he later said "No objection" after the trial court required the exhibits to be reoffered before publication to the jury. The court reasoned that the earlier running objection did not preserve error indefinitely once the evidentiary posture changed and the court required a renewed offer and ruling. The court also explained that, even if preserved, the search-history and image evidence was sufficiently probative because it mirrored the alleged familial dynamic and was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Litigation Takeaway
"A running objection is not self-executing forever. If the court requires an exhibit to be reoffered, family law trial counsel must renew the objection or expressly state that the prior objection continues; saying "No objection" will likely waive the issue on appeal."
Mathis v. State
COA06
In Mathis v. State, the Texarkana Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction for assault family violence causing bodily injury, holding the evidence was legally sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia. The complainant testified that Mathis hit and choked her during multiple incidents, and her account was corroborated by injury photographs, 9-1-1 calls, family-member testimony, officer observations, rideshare evidence, and Mathis’s own recorded statements. The court emphasized that appellate review does not reweigh credibility disputes and must defer to the jury’s resolution of conflicting evidence when a rational factfinder could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Litigation Takeaway
"Family-violence claims become far more persuasive when testimony is backed by contemporaneous corroboration such as photos, 9-1-1 recordings, officer observations, third-party witnesses, timeline evidence, and party admissions. For family-law cases, Mathis is a strong reminder that credibility attacks alone may fail when the record contains multiple reinforcing sources of proof."
In the Interest of G.W. and M.W., Children
COA02
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals dismissed Mother’s appeal from an order terminating her rights to only two of three children in a pending SAPCR. Applying Lehmann finality principles, the court examined the live pleadings and record, noted that claims involving the third child and that child’s father remained pending, and found no severance, abandonment, or clear finality language. Because the order resolved fewer than all parties and claims and was not independently appealable under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a), the court held the order was interlocutory and dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"In multi-child or multi-party family cases, do not assume a major ruling is immediately appealable. Before filing a notice of appeal, confirm that every party and claim has been disposed of, or obtain a severance or clear abandonment; otherwise the appeal may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."
In the Interest of J.M.H., a Child
COA06
Mother and Stepfather sought to terminate Father’s parental rights so Stepfather could adopt the child after Father was convicted of ten felony counts of possession of child pornography and sentenced to consecutive prison terms. The Texarkana Court of Appeals held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(P) because Father knowingly engaged in criminal conduct, was imprisoned as a result, and official TDCJ records showed he would remain confined for well over two years from the petition’s filing date. The court rejected Father’s testimony about possible earlier release as speculative and also found the record showed he had no adequate care arrangement for the child during incarceration. The same evidence—along with the child’s stable home with Mother and Stepfather, Father’s lack of support and limited contact, and Stepfather’s intent to adopt—supported the best-interest finding under § 161.001(b)(2).
Litigation Takeaway
"In imprisonment-ground termination cases, the conviction alone is not enough: build the record with the petition filing date, prison records, parole and release evidence, and proof the incarcerated parent has no concrete care plan for the child. For the defending parent, speculative parole testimony will usually fail unless backed by records and a realistic caregiving arrangement."
Wilcox v. Duran
COA02
In Wilcox v. Duran, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals considered whether two counterclaims arising from a bitter custody-related dispute—abuse of process and a claim based on allegedly false police reports—could be dismissed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. The court first held the TCPA motion was timely because the counterclaims were newly added by amended pleading and contained different elements, creating a new 60-day deadline under Montelongo. But on the merits, the court held the movant failed to meet the TCPA’s threshold burden to show the claims were based on, related to, or in response to protected petitioning or free speech. The court focused on the gravamen of the claims: misuse of legal process and knowingly false reporting, not protected advocacy itself. Because simply characterizing litigation conduct or police communications as protected activity was not enough, the court affirmed denial of TCPA dismissal.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-law-related tort fights, do not assume the TCPA automatically applies just because the alleged misconduct involved court filings, procedural tools, or police reports. Courts will look at the gravamen of the claim, and allegations of abuse of process or knowingly false reporting may fall outside Chapter 27 altogether. For movants, win step one with a precise statutory fit before arguing evidence; for nonmovants, frame the claim around wrongful misuse or falsity rather than protected communications."
James Forrest v. The State of Texas
COA07
In Forrest v. State, the Amarillo Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction for aggravated assault by threat with a deadly weapon after the defendant argued the evidence was too inconsistent to support the verdict. The complainant testified that Forrest pointed a gun at him, threatened to kill him, and fired during the encounter; officers recovered physical evidence—including shell casings, a bullet hole, and injuries consistent with a struggle—that generally corroborated that account. Applying Jackson v. Virginia, the court held that credibility disputes, conflicting testimony, and incomplete forensic details were for the jury to resolve, and that the offense was complete once Forrest threatened imminent bodily injury while using or exhibiting the firearm. The court also rejected a jury-charge complaint, concluding the evidence did not require a voluntary-act instruction because the alleged conduct included Forrest’s voluntary act of pointing the gun.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a case turns on a firearm-backed threat, the factfinder may credit one party’s account even if the stories conflict and the physical evidence is not perfectly neat. For family-law cases involving protective orders, custody restrictions, or temporary orders, Forrest is a useful authority for the point that pointing a gun and threatening harm can be enough if the surrounding evidence materially supports the complainant’s version."