Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
946 opinions found
Payne v. Boyd
COA04
In Payne v. Boyd, a nonlawyer brother (Donald) attempted to prosecute a lawsuit for the named plaintiff (Darrell) based on a power of attorney arising from Darrell’s pending criminal matter. Defendants filed pleas to the jurisdiction asserting Donald lacked capacity and standing. The Fourth Court of Appeals distinguished capacity (a procedural defect that must be raised by verified pleading under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 93) from standing (a jurisdictional requirement that can be raised by plea to the jurisdiction and is not waivable). Because defendants did not file a Rule 93 verified pleading, any capacity challenge was waived. But Donald still lacked standing because he pleaded no personal injury to himself and could not manufacture standing by claiming agency under a POA to assert Darrell’s constitutional/statutory claims. The standing defect deprived the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction, and dismissal was proper without leave to replead because the defect was incurable as to Donald.
Litigation Takeaway
"A power of attorney is not a license to litigate. Even if the other side fails to preserve a Rule 93 verified “capacity” objection, you can still knock out proxy-driven filings by attacking standing with a plea to the jurisdiction—standing is nonwaivable and requires the filer to allege their own concrete injury. Preserve both: verified Rule 93 capacity challenge + plea to the jurisdiction on standing."
In the Interest of A.I.M.H., S.R.V. Jr., and F.K.V., Children
COA04
In a Department-initiated termination suit, both parents challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting termination. The Fourth Court of Appeals reviewed the record under the clear-and-convincing standard and termination sufficiency frameworks (legal sufficiency: view evidence favorably to the finding and defer to credibility determinations; factual sufficiency: consider the whole record and whether disputed evidence is so significant that a firm belief could not be formed). The court held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support predicate grounds—especially endangerment and continued controlled-substance use coupled with refusal/failure to complete treatment—based on Mother’s admissions of frequent methamphetamine and marijuana use, physical evidence of methamphetamine, and an extensive drug-test history (33 positives out of 36 requests, including shortly before trial), along with service-plan noncompliance and untreated mental-health concerns. As to Father, the court affirmed termination and rejected his best-interest challenge, emphasizing his refusal to drug test and meaningfully engage in services, unmanaged mental-health issues (including self-medicating with street-obtained pills), unstable housing/employment, and the children’s trauma responses tied to domestic-violence risk factors. Weighing the chronic, unresolved risk factors against the children’s stability and progress in the maternal grandmother’s home and her intent to adopt, the court upheld the trial court’s best-interest finding and affirmed termination of both parents’ rights.
Litigation Takeaway
"Termination (and high-stakes custody) cases are won on patterns, not episodes: repeated positive/missed drug tests, refusal or discharge from treatment, unmanaged mental health, and ongoing domestic-violence risk factors can establish endangerment and drive the best-interest analysis. Document the services offered and the parent’s noncompliance, and contrast ongoing instability with the child’s progress and permanency in a stable placement—late, last-minute re-engagement is often too little, too late."
In re Jesus Ybarra
COA07
In an adult parentage suit, the trial court ordered the alleged father (relator) to submit to genetic testing. Although he sought a stay and obtained a written order plus findings and conclusions, he did not file for mandamus until almost a year later—after the court issued a renewed testing deadline and warned noncompliance could lead to contempt. The Seventh Court of Appeals treated mandamus as an equity-governed remedy and held the unexplained delay was unreasonable and barred relief; a later contempt warning did not “restart the clock” or create new mandamus issues because the relator’s statutory/constitutional complaints (retroactivity, privacy, due process) were the same when the original testing order was issued. The court also rejected the relator’s request to prospectively prohibit a future contempt proceeding on double-jeopardy grounds as unripe and an impermissible advisory opinion. Mandamus was denied without reaching the merits of the challenges to the testing order.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you plan to challenge a genetic-testing (or other intrusive, effectively unreviewable) family-law order by mandamus, act fast—equity favors the diligent, and waiting until enforcement ramps up or contempt is threatened is often too late. Contempt warnings usually don’t reset mandamus deadlines, and appellate courts won’t pre-approve defenses to hypothetical future contempt proceedings."
In the Interest of M.Z. and M.C.Z., Children
COA05
In a Dallas County divorce after a 23-year marriage, the community estate included the husband’s executive deferred-compensation “performance units,” which would pay only upon future contingent events (e.g., IPO, dividend, sale) and could be forfeited. The only valuation evidence was uncontroverted expert CPA testimony that the units had no presently ascertainable fair market value as of trial, but were not worthless and could be divided in kind. The trial court nevertheless treated the units as 100% community property, awarded 100% of them to the husband, and assigned a $0 value in the just-and-right division. Applying the abuse-of-discretion framework with embedded legal-sufficiency review under Texas Family Code § 7.001, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that evidence showing “no current calculable FMV” does not support a finding of “no value,” and the record contained no affirmative evidence that the units were worthless. Because the performance units were a material portion of the community estate, the erroneous $0 valuation tainted the overall division. The court reversed the property division and remanded for a new, proper division of the community estate (affirming the divorce otherwise).
Litigation Takeaway
"Contingent does not mean worthless. If an asset can’t be reliably valued today (executive compensation, earnouts, carried interests, options), a court cannot simply assign $0 without evidence of actual worthlessness—especially if it awards the entire asset to one spouse. Build a record that either (1) proves worthlessness, or (2) supports a division-in-kind or other non-speculative mechanism, and tie any valuation error to overall “just and right” harm when the asset is material."
Christopher Peoples v. The State of Texas
COA12
In a robbery‑based capital murder appeal, the Twelfth Court of Appeals held (1) the trial court properly refused a self‑defense jury instruction on capital murder alleged under Texas Penal Code § 19.03(a)(2) while allowing self‑defense on the lesser‑included offense of murder, and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting text‑message chains over authenticity and “best evidence” objections. The State alleged Christopher Peoples killed the victim while in the course of committing/attempting robbery; Peoples admitted the killing but claimed self‑defense and the defense sought a self‑defense instruction on the capital charge. The court reasoned that, under Texas precedent and Penal Code § 9.31(b)(4), a robber has no right of self‑defense against the intended victim, so submitting self‑defense on the robbery‑capital theory would misstate the law; the jury could still consider self‑defense only if it rejected the robbery predicate and reached the murder lesser. On the evidentiary issue, the court applied Texas Rules of Evidence 901 and 1001–1002, emphasizing Rule 901’s low “support a finding” authentication threshold and that ESI “originals” include any accurate printout/output readable by sight. Missing or unrecoverable attachments in a forensic extraction did not make the message threads inadmissible; that limitation went to weight, not admissibility, so long as the proponent sufficiently linked the messages to the sender and showed the exhibit accurately reflected what was extracted.
Litigation Takeaway
"For Texas family‑law trials, *Peoples* is a practical blueprint for getting texts admitted (or keeping them out). Missing attachments or an imperfect extraction usually won’t defeat admissibility if you can authenticate the messages with circumstantial “linking” facts and lay that the exhibit accurately reflects the recovered data; argue gaps go to weight, not admissibility. If opposing, focus objections on weak authorship linkage and whether the proffered output reliably/accurately reflects the source (and consider Rule 403 for misleading excerpts), not merely that the thread is incomplete."
In the Interest of I.R.R., a Child
COA05
In a restricted appeal from a default SAPCR, Father argued the judgment was void for defective service and, alternatively, unsupported by evidence. The Dallas Court of Appeals first examined the face of the record for strict compliance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 106 and 107 and held the return of service adequately identified Father and what was served; Rule 107 did not require the served petition/exhibits to be attached to the return in the clerk’s file, so the trial court had personal jurisdiction. The court then reviewed the default prove-up evidence and concluded it was legally insufficient to establish Father’s net resources, making both the guideline-based current support order and the retroactive support judgment unsustainable. Finally, the court held the record was factually insufficient to overcome the Family Code presumption that joint managing conservatorship is in the child’s best interest; the prove-up lacked substantive best-interest evidence justifying Mother as sole managing conservator with Father as possessory conservator. The court reversed the SAPCR order and remanded for a new trial.
Litigation Takeaway
"Even in a default SAPCR with airtight service, you still must build a real evidentiary record: prove net resources (and show the guideline math) for current and retroactive support, and present concrete best-interest facts to rebut the joint-managing presumption if seeking a sole-managing conservatorship. For respondents, restricted appeals often succeed on sufficiency problems in thin prove-ups rather than on service defects."
In the Interest of T.C.C. and B.D.C., Children
COA05
After a bench trial, the judge orally rendered that Father would pay guideline child support based on minimum-wage net resources and reimburse Mother for the children’s portion of health-insurance premiums. The written final divorce decree signed shortly after trial contained lower child-support numbers and omitted any reimbursement obligation. Months later—after the trial court’s plenary power expired—Mother moved for a judgment nunc pro tunc to correct the decree to match the oral rendition. The Dallas Court of Appeals treated the dispute as a clerical “rendition-versus-entry” problem: because the reporter’s record showed the court had already rendered guideline child support on minimum-wage earnings and ordered premium reimbursement, the later written decree’s inconsistent numbers and omission were clerical mistakes in memorializing the judgment, not a new judicial decision. The court held the trial court could correct those clerical errors by nunc pro tunc at any time, and it affirmed the corrected child-support amounts and added medical-support reimbursement term. The court also dismissed Father’s challenges to unrelated provisions (protective order, conservatorship, homestead sale) for lack of jurisdiction because an appeal from a nunc pro tunc judgment reaches only the nunc pro tunc corrections, not issues that could have been appealed from the original decree.
Litigation Takeaway
"If the signed decree doesn’t match what the judge said on the record, a nunc pro tunc can fix true clerical discrepancies—even after plenary power expires—but it cannot be used to make new judicial changes. Also, appealing a nunc pro tunc order does not reopen the whole divorce; appellate review is limited to the corrections actually made, so missing the original appeal deadline can be fatal to other complaints."
In the Interest of C.R., a Child
COA04
In a Guadalupe County divorce, the mother alleged a history or pattern of family violence/abuse/neglect and sought to be appointed sole managing conservator with the father denied possession and access (or, alternatively, supervised access). A jury trial on conservatorship resulted in findings (under a preponderance standard in the charge) that the mother should be sole managing conservator and that the father should not be appointed a possessory conservator. At the charge conference, the father affirmatively stated he had “no objections.” The trial court then rendered a decree appointing the mother sole managing conservator and denying the father any possession or access, with findings that access would endanger the child and was not in the child’s best interest. On appeal, the father argued the preponderance instruction was unconstitutional because a no-access decree is “tantamount to termination” and should require clear-and-convincing evidence, and also contended the submission improperly asked the jury to decide an impermissible “term or condition” of possession/access under Tex. Fam. Code § 105.002(c)(2)(B). The Fourth Court treated both arguments as unpreserved jury-charge complaints: by stating “no objections,” the father waived charge error, and the court declined to apply fundamental-error review, noting that even in actual termination cases the Supreme Court requires preservation and that conservatorship orders—unlike termination—remain modifiable (distinguishing cases like *Stary* tied to protective orders). The court further concluded the jury was asked to decide conservatorship status (permissible), and because the jury refused to place the father in any conservatorship role, the trial court properly denied possession and access as a consequence of that status determination. The decree was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"If a conservatorship submission sets up a potential “no access” outcome, you must preserve error at the charge conference—object to the burden of proof and the form of the questions and obtain rulings. Saying “no objections” will almost certainly waive appellate review, and courts will not rescue the issue by rebranding it as fundamental error or “de facto termination.”"
In the Matter of X.M., a Juvenile
COA12
In a Texas juvenile determinate-sentence case, X.M. attempted to appeal a December 2, 2019 adjudication and disposition order committing the juvenile to TJJD by filing a pro se notice of appeal on February 24, 2026—more than six years late. The Twelfth Court of Appeals analyzed the mandatory appellate timetables under TRAP 26.1 (deadline to file notice of appeal) and TRAP 26.3 (15-day grace period requiring both a notice of appeal and a timely motion for extension). Because neither a timely notice nor a timely extension request was filed within the rule-based windows, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction. The court also rejected any request to “fix” the problem by suspending the rules, holding TRAP 2 cannot be used to alter the time to perfect an appeal in a civil case. The court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction under TRAP 42.3(a) and overruled pending motions as moot.
Litigation Takeaway
"Appellate deadlines are jurisdictional: if you miss the TRAP 26.1 notice-of-appeal deadline (and the narrow TRAP 26.3 grace period), the court of appeals cannot reach the merits—no matter how compelling the circumstances. In family-law cases with accelerated timetables, calendar the signing date immediately, file the notice early when in doubt, and do a “jurisdiction audit” before evaluating appellate issues."
Daniel Matthew Bible v. The State of Texas
COA03
In this criminal appeal with family-law crossover implications, the defendant challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting an indecency-with-a-child-by-contact conviction as to alleged “breast” touching. Although the complainant initially answered “No” when asked directly whether her breast was touched and described the contact as stopping at the “bra line,” the court reviewed the entire record under the Jackson v. Virginia legal-sufficiency standard and deferred to the jury’s role as factfinder. The jury saw the complainant demonstrate the hand movement across her chest and reviewed an admitted body diagram she highlighted to show the area touched. A forensic interviewer testified that the complainant’s “bra line” demonstration included the breast, and a forensic nurse explained that young children have breast tissue and that the highlighted area encompassed the breasts. Considering the demonstrations, diagram, and corroborating contextual evidence, the Third Court of Appeals held a rational juror could find breast contact beyond a reasonable doubt and affirmed the conviction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Don’t assume a witness’s damaging sound-bite answer (e.g., “No, he didn’t touch my breast”) defeats an abuse allegation when the testimony includes location descriptors (“bra line”), in-court demonstrations, and marked diagrams. Courts can treat demonstrative evidence—especially when supported by CAC/forensic interviewer and medical testimony—as enough to prove anatomically specific contact, and factfinders may credit that totality over semantic inconsistencies. In custody/protective-order litigation, build (or attack) the foundation and clarity of diagrams/gestures and the “translator” testimony that links imprecise language to legally significant anatomy."