Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
946 opinions found
Trevino v. State
COA13
In Trevino v. State, a defendant facing intoxication manslaughter charges attempted to prevent the prosecution from presenting graphic evidence—such as autopsy photos and scene footage—by offering to 'stipulate' (legally admit) to his intoxication and the resulting fatalities. He argued that because he conceded these facts, the evidence was unnecessarily prejudicial under Texas Rule of Evidence 403. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that while stipulations are required for 'prior conviction' elements, they do not give a party the power to strip the opponent of the right to tell the full narrative of the current incident. The court concluded that the State was entitled to present the 'full evidentiary force' of the case to provide context and support its theories of the crime.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family law disputes involving domestic violence or substance abuse, an opposing party cannot 'stipulate away' your right to show the court the full story. Admitting that an incident happened does not automatically block you from using high-impact evidence like 9-1-1 calls, photos, or police videos to show the court the true severity of the situation."
In the Interest of K.A.E.E. and K.M.-A.E., Children
COA10
The Department of Family and Protective Services sought to terminate parental rights following incidents of domestic violence and substance abuse. Despite being offered relocation assistance and shelter services, the mother chose to return to an abusive environment with the father and violated a court-ordered safety plan. The Tenth Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), emphasizing that endangerment occurs when a parent prioritizes an abusive relationship over a stable environment, even without evidence of actual injury to the child. The court held that the parents' continued association and rejection of safety resources constituted clear and convincing evidence to support termination and the best-interest finding.
Litigation Takeaway
"In termination proceedings, a parent's affirmative decision to reject domestic violence resources and return to an abuser in violation of a safety plan is potent evidence of endangering conduct, as 'endangerment' does not require a child to suffer actual physical injury."
Childress v. Tradd
COA03
Following the death of Robert Caldwell, the executor of his estate sued Dione Childress for conversion after she removed estate property, claiming she was Caldwell's common-law wife. During litigation, Childress, acting pro se, failed to respond to discovery requests, including requests for admissions. The executor moved for summary judgment based on these 'deemed admissions.' Childress filed a response only four days before the hearing without seeking leave of court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, holding that under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c), a response filed less than seven days before a hearing is a nullity. Furthermore, under Rule 198.3, the failure to respond to admissions conclusively established the facts necessary for the estate to prevail. The court emphasized that pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as licensed attorneys.
Litigation Takeaway
"Procedural deadlines are absolute, and 'deemed admissions' are a litigation guillotine. In marriage and property disputes, failing to answer discovery requests can conclusively surrender your case, as courts will not grant leniency to pro se litigants who ignore the mandatory seven-day window for summary judgment responses or discovery deadlines."
Absolute Oil + Gas, LLC v. Chord Energy Corp.
COA01
In Absolute Oil + Gas, LLC v. Chord Energy Corp., the trial court severed dismissed tort and unjust enrichment claims from an ongoing contract dispute to create a final, appealable judgment. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the severance under the three-prong Guaranty Federal test, focusing on whether the claims were 'factually interwoven.' The court found that because all claims stemmed from the same alleged collusive scheme to inflate costs and shared identical parties and evidence, severance risked inconsistent rulings—particularly regarding whether an express contract barred quasi-contractual recovery. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion, reversing the severance order because the claims were inextricably linked by shared operative facts.
Litigation Takeaway
"Prevent 'divide and conquer' tactics in complex property litigation by using the Interwoven Claims Doctrine to block the severance of tort claims (like fraud on the community) from the main property division, ensuring a single, cohesive 'just and right' adjudication."
Ex Parte Giambi Boyd
COA01
In Ex Parte Boyd, a defendant was held for 560 days on a $1.2 million bond for murder and aggravated assault charges. Despite the severity of the crimes, the State admitted it was not ready for trial because forensic firearms testing was still pending. The First Court of Appeals analyzed Article 17.151 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that a felony defendant must be released on a personal bond or have their bail reduced to an affordable amount if the State is not ready for trial within 90 days of detention. The court held that this statute is mandatory and does not permit a "safety exception" for dangerous offenses. Consequently, because the defendant proved he could only afford a $5,000 bond, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and ordered the bail reduction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not rely on the criminal justice system to keep a violent or dangerous party incarcerated during a family law case; if the State isn't ready for trial within 90 days, the party may be released on a nominal bond regardless of the charges. Family law practitioners must proactively secure civil Protective Orders and restrictive temporary orders to ensure the safety of their clients and children."
Boardman v. State
COA13
In a criminal burglary case with significant implications for family law evidence, the defendant challenged the admission of bodycam footage from a subsequent, unrelated traffic stop used to identify him. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals focused on whether the defendant's trial objection under Rule 403 (unfair prejudice) was sufficient to preserve a complaint under Rule 404(b) (extraneous acts). The court held that a Rule 403 objection does not preserve a Rule 404(b) challenge and that the footage was admissible because its high probative value regarding the defendant's identity—linking his clothing and vehicle to the crime scene—was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.
Litigation Takeaway
"To protect your record for appeal, a Rule 403 objection is not a "catch-all"; you must specifically invoke Rule 404(b) if you are challenging the admission of extraneous acts or character evidence, even when the evidence is a "mundane" video like a traffic stop."
In re K.M.R., a Child
COA14
In this parental termination case, a mother appealed the loss of her parental rights after her child tested positive for cocaine at birth. She argued that the trial court violated her due process by denying a request to delay the trial while she was in a behavioral hospital, and that her prenatal drug use did not constitute an endangering 'environment' because the child was removed immediately after birth. The 14th Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, holding that the mother failed to follow mandatory procedures by not including a sworn affidavit with her request for a delay. The court also clarified that under Texas law, the 'environment' of a child includes the womb, meaning drug use during pregnancy is sufficient evidence of endangerment to support termination.
Litigation Takeaway
"Always adhere to the technical requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 251 when seeking a trial delay; failing to include a sworn verification or affidavit can prevent you from challenging the denial on appeal. Furthermore, be aware that Texas courts consider prenatal drug use as creating an endangering environment, effectively neutralizing the defense that a parent never had post-birth custody of the child."
City of Houston v. Pellott
COA14
In City of Houston v. Pellott, a plaintiff sued the city under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) but failed to specifically plead that timely statutory notice was provided to the governmental unit. The City moved for dismissal under Rule 91a, arguing the petition lacked a basis in law because it failed to allege this jurisdictional prerequisite. Although the plaintiff provided evidence in a response suggesting that notice had actually been sent and received, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals focused strictly on the pleadings. The court analyzed the case under the Harris County v. Sykes doctrine, which requires dismissal with prejudice when a party fails to cure a jurisdictional pleading defect after being given multiple opportunities to replead. The court reversed the trial court's denial of the motion and rendered a judgment dismissing the case with prejudice.
Litigation Takeaway
"When suing a governmental entity—whether for incidents involving CPS, school districts, or police during possession exchanges—pleading statutory notice in your petition is a jurisdictional requirement, not a suggestion. You cannot rely on external evidence or 'actual notice' to save a case if your formal pleadings are defective; if you fail to fix the petition after a challenge, the court can dismiss your claim permanently with prejudice."
Arturo Diaz, et al. v. Herc Rentals Inc.
COA08
In this case, a creditor (Herc Rentals) sought to reach assets transferred by a debtor (Arturo Diaz) to a newly formed LLC intended to shield those assets from a judgment. The debtor argued that the claims under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA) were barred by the four-year statute of repose. The Eighth Court of Appeals analyzed the 'discovery rule' within TUFTA, which allows a claim to be brought within one year of when a transfer 'could reasonably have been discovered.' The court held that the public filing of articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State constitutes constructive notice as a matter of law, meaning the clock started when the entity was formed, not when the debtor's fraudulent intent was later revealed in a deposition. Consequently, the claims were extinguished.
Litigation Takeaway
"Public records are notice to the world; in divorce litigation involving business owners, counsel must perform regular Secretary of State entity searches to identify newly formed shell companies. Waiting for formal discovery or depositions to uncover a spouse's fraudulent intent may result in your claims being barred by the statute of repose if the entity's formation was publicly recorded more than a year prior."
In re Georgina Yackelin Ramirez Uzcátegui
COA03
After being deported to Venezuela, a mother sought the return of her child from the father in Texas based on a Venezuelan custody order granting her exclusive possession. When the Texas trial court denied her writ of habeas corpus, the Third Court of Appeals intervened, ruling that the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) requires Texas courts to treat foreign custody orders with the same weight as orders from other U.S. states. The court held that once a parent establishes a 'bare legal right' to possession through a valid order, the trial court must enforce it as a mandatory duty, unless the opposing party proves a dire emergency or an immediate threat to the child's safety.
Litigation Takeaway
"Valid foreign custody orders provide a powerful 'fast-track' for child recovery in Texas; unless a parent can prove a dire emergency, Texas courts are legally required to enforce foreign decrees via habeas corpus without reconsidering the merits of the custody case."