Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1216 opinions found
In the Matter of C.B.
COA14
In In the Matter of C.B., the Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that a juvenile court retained authority under Texas Family Code section 54.11 to conduct a determinate-sentence transfer hearing and transfer C.B. to TDCJ, even though he was already confined in TDCJ on an adult robbery conviction and had never been physically admitted to TJJD. The court focused on the statutory prerequisites rather than physical placement, reasoning that C.B. remained subject to an uncompleted juvenile determinate sentence that had been committed to TJJD, and TJJD properly made the referral required for the transfer hearing. The court rejected arguments that adult custody divested the juvenile court of power, found sufficient evidence to support transfer based on the underlying offense, later adult conviction, TJJD recommendation, and inability to complete the sentence in the juvenile system before age nineteen, and held that no reversible due-process error was shown from C.B.’s Zoom appearance because no objection was preserved. The court also found no reversible error in the deadly-weapon finding in the transfer order.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not confuse a party’s physical custody status with a court’s continuing statutory authority. In overlapping Family Code and criminal matters, the key questions are whether the governing statute still authorizes action and whether the required procedural triggers have occurred. Also, preserve procedural objections—especially to remote appearances—because unpreserved complaints are unlikely to succeed on appeal."
In Re Guardianship of S.M.D.
COA05
In this Texas guardianship case, the proposed ward’s cousin sought temporary and permanent guardianship and alleged that the ward’s agent under a power of attorney had used that authority for self-dealing, including creating a trust, naming himself trustee, and transferring assets. After the agent opposed guardianship and argued that less restrictive alternatives already existed, the probate court granted a motion under Estates Code § 1055.001, found his interests adverse to the proposed ward, and dismissed his contest for lack of standing. The Dallas Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of that standing ruling. Instead, applying Estates Code § 1022.001(c) and the probate-finality framework from De Ayala v. Mackie and Crowson, the court held the order was interlocutory because it did not dispose of a discrete phase of the proceeding: the permanent guardianship application remained pending and no permanent guardian had been appointed. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"A major standing ruling in a guardianship case is not necessarily immediately appealable. If the probate court excludes your client from contesting guardianship under Estates Code § 1055.001 but the permanent guardianship phase is still pending, you likely must preserve error and wait for an appealable final probate order before seeking review."
Bisor v. State
COA05
In Bisor v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a general hearsay objection to an entire TDCJ prison pen packet did not preserve a narrower complaint that specific disciplinary entries contained inadmissible embedded hearsay. The court explained that when a composite exhibit contains both admissible and allegedly inadmissible material, the objecting party must identify the particular pages or statements being challenged so the trial court has a fair opportunity to rule. The court further indicated that, even if preserved, the pen packet was generally admissible as a self-authenticated public record and under the business-records exception, with the defendant’s own statements also admissible as party-opponent admissions. Finally, the court held that any assumed error was harmless because the punishment record already included a prior murder conviction, other misconduct evidence, and a 23-year sentence near the low end of the enhanced range.
Litigation Takeaway
"Blanket objections to mixed records usually are not enough. If only part of a composite exhibit is objectionable, identify the exact page, entry, or statement and state the precise basis—especially for embedded hearsay—so the issue is preserved for appeal. In family-law trials, this lesson applies directly to CPS files, medical records, school records, counseling records, police reports, and other multi-layered exhibits."
Allen v. State
COA12
In *Allen v. State*, the Tyler Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision to admit a police detective’s expert testimony on gang membership, gang culture, and gang dynamics under Texas Rule of Evidence 702. The dispute was whether the detective had a sufficient specialized foundation to identify the defendant and others as members of the Westside Rollin’ 60s and explain the gang’s local structure and behavior. The court focused on the witness’s actual knowledge and experience—eighteen years with the department, years as a detective, a gang-focused assignment, repeated gang investigations, training, intelligence gathering, familiarity with the specific local gang, and prior gang-related testimony—rather than formal academic credentials. It held that this case-specific and experience-based foundation was enough to qualify him as an expert. The court also held that unsupported items in the bill of costs had to be removed, so it modified the judgment and affirmed as modified.
Litigation Takeaway
"Rule 702 fights are won or lost on fit and foundation, not titles. If you offer a specialized witness in a family case, build a concrete record showing training, repeated experience, local or issue-specific knowledge, methodology, and how the witness’s expertise connects to the exact dispute. If you challenge the witness, attack gaps between generalized experience and the precise opinion offered, and insist that any monetary assessment in the final order have a clear legal and evidentiary basis."
Juan Fidel Lopez Antonio v. PNC Bank National Association
COA12
On restricted appeal from a default judgment, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that a private process server’s return was not defective under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 107(e) merely because the unsworn declaration cited 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and stated it was made under penalty of perjury under federal law. The court analyzed Rule 107(e)’s requirement that the return be verified or signed under penalty of perjury in substantially the prescribed form, and concluded strict compliance does not require a talismanic reference to Texas law. Because the return included the server’s identifying information, execution details, signature, and a perjury-backed attestation, there was no error apparent on the face of the record, and the default judgment was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you are defending a default judgment, a return of service is not automatically void just because the private server used federal unsworn-declaration language instead of expressly invoking Texas law. The key is whether the return still contains Rule 107’s essential service details and a signed attestation under penalty of perjury; attacks should focus on real omissions, not stylistic wording differences."
In re Laci Kay Johnson a/k/a Laci Kay Bode
COA05
In this original proceeding, the relator sought mandamus relief from the trial court’s January 26, 2026 oral rulings denying a motion to dismiss and a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a Dallas family-law matter. The Dallas Court of Appeals did not reach the merits. Instead, it applied laches under Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera, emphasizing that an unexplained delay of four months or more can justify denial of mandamus. Because the relator waited more than five months to seek relief and gave no reasonable explanation for the delay—even considering an earlier defective Rule 52 filing—the court held laches barred mandamus and denied related emergency motions as moot.
Litigation Takeaway
"Mandamus is a diligence-driven remedy: if you intend to challenge an oral ruling in a family-law case, move quickly, comply with Rule 52, and explain any delay in the petition and record. Waiting four months or more without a solid explanation can forfeit extraordinary relief before the court ever considers the merits."
Glen Edward Williams v. Office of the Attorney General Child Support Division and Alycia Monet Kelley
COA03
In Williams, the Austin Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of the father's bill of review challenging prior child-support-related orders because the appeal was jurisdictionally premature. Williams filed his bill of review in the same cause number as the underlying case, where a separate petition to terminate child-support withholding was still pending. Applying Lehmann and Bella Palma, the court analyzed finality by looking at the entire cause, not just the bill-of-review ruling, and held the order was not final because it neither disposed of the remaining withholding claim nor contained a clear and unequivocal statement that it disposed of all claims and all parties. Because no statute authorized an interlocutory appeal from that nonfinal order, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not assume an order denying a bill of review is immediately appealable in a family-law case. Before filing a notice of appeal, audit the entire cause number for any live pleadings and make sure the order either resolves every remaining claim or includes unmistakable finality language; otherwise, the appeal may be dismissed as premature."
Harris v. State
COA05
In Harris v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a 911 recording could be admitted through the business-records framework of Texas Rules of Evidence 803(6) and 902(10) based on a compliant records-custodian affidavit, even though neither the caller nor the dispatcher testified. The defendant challenged the recording on authentication, hearsay, and confrontation grounds. The court rejected the argument that 911 calls must be admitted, if at all, only as public records, and concluded that the affidavit sufficiently established the recording was kept in the regular course of business and that the offered copy was the original or an exact duplicate, making it self-authenticating. The court also held that the trial court properly addressed hearsay concerns by reviewing the audio, redacting objectionable portions, and admitting only the remainder, and that the caller’s statements during an ongoing emergency were non-testimonial under Davis v. Washington. The conviction was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"For family lawyers, Harris is a practical roadmap for getting 911 audio into evidence without live testimony from the caller or dispatcher. A properly prepared Rule 902(10) affidavit can solve the authentication problem, but lawyers still must separately analyze the statements within the call for hearsay exceptions and be ready to propose targeted redactions rather than all-or-nothing admission."
Gabriel Joshua Alonzo v. The State of Texas
COA07
In Gabriel Joshua Alonzo v. State of Texas, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that an ex-boyfriend’s prior access to a woman’s home did not defeat a burglary conviction where she had the greater present right to possession and had revoked consent for him to enter. The court focused on possession at the time of entry, relying on Penal Code section 1.07(a)(35)(A) and Morgan v. State, and found the evidence sufficient because the complainant leased and occupied the home, the relationship had ended, he was not on the lease, did not pay rent, and she testified he was no longer allowed inside. The court also held the evidence supported the assault and theft elements because he grabbed, shook, and shoved her causing pain, then took her phone during a 911 call and kept it for several days. The conviction was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"In breakup and separation cases, past access to a residence—keys, overnight stays, mail, or informal living arrangements—does not necessarily create a continuing right to enter. The winning record is built on present possessory facts: lease or title status, actual occupancy, payment history, clear revocation of consent, changed locks or codes, and contemporaneous objective evidence."
In the Interest of H.H., K.H., Z.H. & Z.H.
COA12
The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of Mother’s parental rights, holding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s best-interest finding under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(2). The record showed severe medical neglect of a medically fragile child, broader neglect of the other children’s developmental, dental, and daily needs, and Mother’s failure to translate services into improved parenting ability. Applying the Holley factors, the court emphasized Mother’s demonstrated inability to meet the children’s present and future needs, the ongoing danger posed by her lack of caregiving capacity, the children’s dramatic improvement in stable foster placements, and the availability of adoptive homes. The court held that this evidence allowed the factfinder to form a firm conviction that termination was in the children’s best interest.
Litigation Takeaway
"In best-interest litigation, courts care far more about proven caregiving capacity, follow-through, stability, and measurable child outcomes than about a parent’s stated love or partial service-plan compliance. If a case involves medical, developmental, or educational neglect, build the record around concrete deficits, future risk, and the child’s progress in a stable placement."