Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1229 opinions found
In Re WhiteWater Midstream, LLC, WWM Operating, LLC, MXP Parent, LLC, and Matterhorn Express Pipeline, LLC
COA14
In In re WhiteWater Midstream, the relators sought mandamus relief from orders compelling discovery and denying reconsideration, arguing the requests were overbroad and unduly burdensome. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals focused first on preservation under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.2(e), not on the merits of those objections. Because the relators did not timely assert overbreadth and undue-burden objections in writing before their response deadline, those objections were waived unless the trial court excused the waiver for good cause. The appellate court held the record supported the trial court’s implied finding that no good cause was shown, so compelling discovery was not an abuse of discretion. Without a clear abuse of discretion, mandamus relief was denied.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas family-law discovery fights, timing can matter more than the substance of your objection: if you do not serve specific written overbreadth or undue-burden objections by the response deadline, you may lose them entirely. For requesting parties, this case is a strong waiver tool; for responding parties, it is a reminder to preserve objections early, specifically, and in writing."
Davet v. State
COA14
In Davet v. State, the defendant argued on appeal that the trial court violated due process by not halting the case and completing competency procedures after counsel raised concerns about his competency. The court noted that the trial judge had granted the defense motion and ordered a competency evaluation, but the process stalled when the defendant failed to appear for the scheduled exam and the evaluator reported that no opinion could be formed. Because the defendant never renewed the request, objected to proceeding to trial, or obtained an adverse ruling after the evaluation failed, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals held under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1 that the complaint was not preserved. The court therefore overruled the competency issue and affirmed the judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"Getting the initial order is not enough. If an evaluation, procedural safeguard, or court-ordered step breaks down, counsel must re-urge the issue, object to moving forward, and obtain a ruling on the record or the appellate complaint may be lost."
Davis v. State
COA02
In Davis v. State, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals considered whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support deadly-weapon findings in a family-violence prosecution where the defendant used both his hands and a knife. Applying the Jackson v. Virginia legal-sufficiency standard and Texas Penal Code section 1.07(a)(17), the court focused on whether the hands and knife, in the manner used or intended to be used, were capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. The court held that repeated strangulation, choking until the complainant turned blue and nearly lost consciousness, resumed choking when she began breathing again, and the severe resulting medical injuries supported the jury’s finding that the defendant’s hands were used as deadly weapons. The court also held that the knife qualified as a deadly weapon because the defendant wielded it, threatened to hurt the complainant if she ran, and used it to force her movement and compliance, even though he did not stab her. The convictions were affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"For family-law cases involving family violence, Davis shows that courts will treat strangulation, coercive control, and threats with a household knife as highly serious evidence even when the assailant used only hands or never actually stabbed the victim. Build the record around the manner of assault, the victim’s inability to breathe or escape, threats tied to a weapon, and the medical consequences, because those facts can strongly support protective orders, custody restrictions, supervised possession, and other safety-based relief."
Grant Hanson v. Tara Louise Nugent
COA03
In this SAPCR appeal, the father challenged a final order appointing the mother sole managing conservator, restricting his possession through a tiered supervised schedule tied to negative drug tests, and excluding evidence he said showed a disability, medication-assisted recovery, and a lawful THC prescription. The court reiterated that conservatorship and possession rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, with sufficiency complaints folded into that review. But the excerpted opinion expressly resolved only the evidentiary complaint, holding it was forfeited because the father’s briefing failed to clearly identify the excluded evidence, address the trial objections, or provide supporting legal authority and analysis. The court affirmed the final SAPCR order.
Litigation Takeaway
"In custody appeals, preservation and briefing matter as much as the merits. If you want to complain about excluded evidence, identify the exact testimony or exhibit, make sure it is in the record, address the objection and ruling, and explain with authority why it was admissible. More broadly, trial courts can support sole managing conservatorship and stepped possession restrictions when the record ties a parent’s substance use to the child’s specific best-interest needs."
In the Interest of A.D., S.R., and K.A., Children
COA11
The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed termination of the mother’s parental rights to three children after she challenged only the sufficiency of the best-interest finding under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2). The court restated the clear-and-convincing standard, the Holley best-interest factors, and the rule that evidence supporting endangerment grounds may also support best interest. The opinion highlighted evidence of methamphetamine use, a meth-possession conviction, domestic violence, a child born testing positive for methamphetamine and marihuana, prior Department involvement, and the mother’s failure to complete services and demonstrate stable, drug-free living. Applying those standards, the court held the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s best-interest finding and affirmed the termination order.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas family cases, past drug use, instability, CPS history, and incomplete services can strongly support a best-interest finding because courts may infer future risk from past conduct. For trial lawyers, the lesson is to build a clear timeline connecting substance abuse, criminal history, safety concerns, and service-plan performance to the child’s present and future needs."
Rains v. State
COA03
In Rains v. State, the Third Court of Appeals reviewed a conviction for repeated violation of a Chapter 85 protective order based on jail calls to the protected person. The court held the jury charge was erroneous under Harvey v. State because it failed to require the jury to find that the respondent had been served with the protective-order application and received notice of the protective-order hearing, and it also failed to define “in violation of a protective order” to include those notice elements. But because no objection was made at trial, the court applied Almanza’s egregious-harm standard and affirmed, concluding the omission did not cause egregious harm where the order recited that the respondent appeared in person and announced ready, the signed order was later served on him in jail, and the defense did not actually contest service of the application or notice of hearing at trial.
Litigation Takeaway
"Protective-order enforcement starts with the family-court record. If a Chapter 85 order may later support criminal enforcement, lawyers should make sure the file clearly proves service of the application, notice of hearing, appearance or nonappearance, and service of the signed order. And if a criminal charge is later tried to a jury, counsel must object if the charge omits Harvey’s required notice-and-service elements, because without an objection appellate relief becomes much harder."
In the Interest of J.C.B.G., et al., Children
COA04
The San Antonio Court of Appeals affirmed termination of Mother’s parental rights, holding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). The court treated the case as a pattern-of-endangerment case, relying on repeated unsafe home conditions, chronic supervision failures, exposure to domestic conflict and inappropriate adults, unsafe transportation practices including children riding unrestrained, failure to obtain proper medical care after injuries, and the severe burn injuries suffered by an infant while in Mother’s care. Applying the clear-and-convincing standard and the distinct analyses for environmental endangerment under subsection (D) and conduct-based endangerment under subsection (E), the court held the record showed both an endangering environment and a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct that endangered the children’s physical and emotional well-being. Because the best-interest finding also stood, the termination order was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Endangerment findings are often won or lost through accumulation, not one dramatic event. In Texas family cases, a documented pattern of poor supervision, unsafe caretakers, transportation safety failures, minimization of injuries, and chronic instability can justify severe restrictions or termination even when the parent points to service compliance or some favorable facts."
In the Interest of X.H.Q., a Child
COA05
In *In the Interest of X.H.Q.*, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a Texas court acting under UIFSA may establish an initial child support obligation even though the registered Arizona divorce decree previously ordered no child support. The Office of the Attorney General registered the Arizona decree and sought support after Father moved to Texas. Father argued the Texas court lacked authority to create support and lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The court rejected both arguments. Relying on Texas Family Code section 159.401 and *In re T.B.*, it concluded that a foreign decree setting support at zero does not bar a Texas UIFSA proceeding to establish support for the first time. On jurisdiction, the court held Father’s sworn waiver of service—stating he received the papers, entered an appearance for all purposes, and waived service—supported personal jurisdiction, and his coercion argument failed because the record did not show he was prevented from reading the waiver or that his free will was overborne. The court further held that, even if the waiver were ineffective, Father made a general appearance that independently submitted him to the court’s jurisdiction. The order establishing child support and medical support was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"A foreign decree ordering no child support does not prevent a Texas court from establishing support under UIFSA. In interstate support cases, the real battleground is usually personal jurisdiction over the obligor, and a signed waiver or later general appearance can be enough to bind that party to a Texas support order."
In the Matter of the Marriage of Sheetal Rane and Prasanth Marreddy
COA05
In this divorce appeal, the Dallas Court of Appeals held the trial court improperly included a Mumbai property in the marital estate and ordered it sold because the evidence showed Wife had gifted the property to her mother before the divorce. Under Texas Family Code section 7.001, a court may divide only property that is part of the marital estate, so once the property was transferred to a third party it was no longer divisible between the spouses. Because the erroneous inclusion of the Mumbai property affected the overall property division, the court reversed and remanded for a new division.
Litigation Takeaway
"Before asking a court to divide or sell an asset in divorce, prove the spouses actually owned it at the time of divorce. In foreign-property and informal-title cases especially, a completed pre-divorce transfer to a third party takes the asset outside the marital estate and can undo the entire property division on appeal."
Servello v. VillaSport LLC
COA14
In Servello v. VillaSport LLC, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals considered a temporary injunction entered in a business-disparagement and defamation suit ordering a former employee to remove a social-media video. Although the parties did not raise the issue, the court reviewed sua sponte whether the injunction complied with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683. Rule 683 requires a temporary injunction order to set the cause for trial on the merits in the order itself. Because the injunction omitted a trial setting, the court held the order was void, reversed the temporary injunction, and remanded. The court also affirmed denial of the appellant’s TCPA motion to dismiss.
Litigation Takeaway
"When seeking or opposing temporary injunctive relief, do not treat Rule 683 as a technicality. The signed injunction order itself must include a merits trial setting, and appellate courts may reverse a temporary injunction for that omission even if no party raises it. In family-law cases, careful injunction drafting is as important as proving the injunction elements."