Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
946 opinions found
Shamim v. Chaudhry
COA05
In Shamim v. Chaudhry, the Dallas Court of Appeals addressed whether 'findings' included within the text of a final judgment are valid on appeal. The case involved a breach of contract claim over a promissory note and counterclaims regarding separate oral loans. Following a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment for the defendant, including three specific findings in the order itself. The Court of Appeals analyzed the procedural requirements of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 296 and 297 and the 'Casino Magic' rule, holding that findings recited within a judgment are procedurally meaningless and cannot substitute for formal Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Because no formal findings were requested, the court applied the 'implied findings' standard. It found that the defendant's counterclaims lacked more than a 'mere scintilla' of evidence, while the plaintiff conclusively established his claim. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment for the plaintiff.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never rely on findings or recitals written directly into a Final Decree or Order; if you prevail at a bench trial, you must timely request formal Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to ensure your evidentiary wins are preserved and protected from 'no-evidence' challenges on appeal."
S&B Engineers & Constructors, Ltd. and Zurich American Insurance Company v. Scallon Controls, Inc.
SCOTX
In S&B Engineers & Constructors v. Scallon Controls, the Supreme Court of Texas addressed whether a party who voluntarily settles a lawsuit loses their right to seek reimbursement (indemnity) from another party under a contract. The conflict arose when a contractor settled claims with injured workers and then sought to recover a proportional share of that settlement from a subcontractor based on their written agreement. The lower court ruled that the settlement extinguished the right to indemnity, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision. The Court analyzed that Texas public policy favors the freedom of contract and the allocation of risk. It held that a voluntary settlement does not bar a contractual indemnity claim, provided the settling party can prove the settlement was reasonable, made in good faith, and that the underlying liability was attributable to the other party.
Litigation Takeaway
"A voluntary settlement is not a 'get out of jail free' card for an indemnitor. If you settle a debt or lawsuit that your ex-spouse was contractually obligated to pay under a divorce decree or MSA, you do not waive your right to reimbursement. As long as your settlement was reasonable and the debt belonged to them, you can still enforce your right to be made whole."
Bunch v. Goen
COA03
In Bunch v. Goen, a non-attorney acting as a court-appointed conservator attempted to file a pro se appeal on behalf of a ward. The Third Court of Appeals faced two primary issues: a non-final judgment and a jurisdictional defect regarding the appellant's representative capacity. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 7 and the Texas Government Code, concluding that the privilege to appear pro se is strictly personal and does not extend to fiduciaries representing the interests of others. The court held that appellate documents filed by a non-lawyer in a representative capacity are a legal nullity and ineffective to invoke the court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court held that while it has the discretion to abate an appeal to allow a trial court to cure a finality defect, it cannot overlook the unauthorized practice of law.
Litigation Takeaway
"A non-lawyer—even one with legal status as a conservator, 'next friend,' or power of attorney—cannot represent another person in court; any pro se notice of appeal filed in such a representative capacity is a nullity that fails to protect the party's right to appeal."
Office of the Attorney General v. PFLAG, Inc.
SCOTX
In Office of the Attorney General v. PFLAG, Inc., the Supreme Court of Texas addressed whether a trial court could enjoin a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) based on the 'political sensitivity' of an investigation into gender-transition care providers. The Court analyzed the CID as a standard discovery tool governed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure rather than a matter for judicial second-guessing of executive branch motives. The Court held that the Attorney General has broad discretion to investigate potential statutory violations, and courts may only limit these demands based on established rules of relevance and privilege, not on the perceived wisdom or political nature of the investigation.
Litigation Takeaway
"The State’s power to investigate third-party records via Civil Investigative Demands is broad and treated like standard discovery; practitioners cannot rely on 'political harassment' defenses to shield sensitive client data. Instead, they must utilize rigorous discovery mechanics, such as privilege logs and redaction agreements, to protect information that could eventually be used as leverage in high-stakes custody or 'best interest' litigation."
In re Arianna Victoria Law
COA02
Relator Arianna Victoria Law sought habeas corpus relief after being jailed for failing to pay child support, following a motion to revoke her community supervision. She argued that the underlying motion was legally deficient and that her due process rights were violated because the trial court allegedly failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or provide a reporter's record. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed the petition and found that Law failed to provide a sufficient record—consisting only of the contempt and commitment orders—to prove her claims. The court clarified that a sworn petition is not evidence and that the Relator had misidentified the applicable sections of the Texas Family Code. Consequently, the court denied the petition, holding that Law failed to carry her burden of providing a record sufficient to establish a right to relief.
Litigation Takeaway
"In habeas corpus and other original proceedings, the "record is king." A sworn petition is not evidence; if you are alleging a denial of due process or a lack of an evidentiary hearing, you must provide a comprehensive record—including motions, all underlying orders, and a reporter’s record (or proof that one was requested and denied)—to enable appellate review."
In the Interest of F.H. and D.K.A.
COA01
In this case, a mother appealed the termination of her parental rights, arguing that the evidence was insufficient because her related criminal charges had been dismissed and she had partially participated in her service plan. The First Court of Appeals rejected these arguments, focusing on the mother's long-term 'course of conduct.' The court analyzed her history of neglectful supervision, her failure to follow psychiatric recommendations, and her ongoing substance abuse—including positive tests for cocaine and marijuana. Ultimately, the court held that the mother’s persistent pattern of instability and failure to complete court-ordered services provided enough evidence of endangerment to justify termination in the children's best interest.
Litigation Takeaway
"Victory in criminal court does not guarantee victory in a CPS case; family courts look at the 'totality of the circumstances,' meaning that a history of neglect and a failure to strictly follow every psychiatric or drug-related recommendation in a service plan can lead to the permanent loss of parental rights."
Romano v. Arrowhead Hill Farm, Inc.
COA09
In Romano v. Arrowhead Hill Farm, Inc., the Appellants challenged a no-evidence summary judgment, arguing the motion was legally insufficient because it failed to separately list the specific elements of three distinct DTPA sub-claims. The Beaumont Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i) in conjunction with the DTPA's statutory requirements. The court found that because 'producing cause' is an essential element common to all claims under Texas Business & Commerce Code § 17.50(a), specifically challenging that single element was sufficient to put the Appellants on notice. The court held that a no-evidence motion is sufficiently specific if it identifies a single element common to multiple theories of recovery, and affirmed the judgment because the Appellants failed to provide evidence in response.
Litigation Takeaway
"Defeat "kitchen sink" pleadings efficiently by using a precision-strike no-evidence motion for summary judgment that targets a single essential element—such as damages or causation—common to multiple overlapping claims."
City of Houston v. Castillo
COA14
After a motor-vehicle collision involving a City of Houston employee, the plaintiff sued under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). The City filed a Rule 91a motion to dismiss, arguing the plaintiff failed to negate the 'emergency' exception to the waiver of immunity and that the plaintiff judicially admitted the officer's immunity. While the City's interlocutory appeal was pending, the trial court issued a discovery order. The Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff is not required to preemptively negate TTCA exceptions unless their own pleadings plausibly implicate those exceptions. Crucially, the court also determined that a Rule 91a motion challenging immunity is a jurisdictional challenge that triggers an automatic statutory stay of all trial court proceedings under Section 51.014(b). The court affirmed the denial of the dismissal but granted mandamus relief to vacate the discovery order entered during the stay.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a governmental unit appeals the denial of a Rule 91a motion based on immunity, it triggers an automatic stay of all trial court proceedings under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(b). Any orders signed during this stay, such as discovery or scheduling orders, are subject to vacatur via mandamus. Additionally, when suing a governmental entity, avoid pleading facts that suggest an emergency or 911 response unless you are prepared to affirmatively negate those specific immunity exceptions in your petition."
In the Interest of S.D.F. and K.M.F.
COA06
In this Texas modification case, a mother filed to modify a previous court order, alleging a 'material and substantial change' in circumstances. Although her petition specifically requested certain changes to child support and possession, the trial court's final default judgment granted additional relief not explicitly mentioned in her pleadings, including an increase in monthly support. The Father appealed, arguing he lacked fair notice of these specific requests. The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, reasoning that in suits affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR), the 'best interest of the child' is the primary consideration. The court held that general pleadings invoking the court's jurisdiction over the child's welfare allow the judge broad power to adjust any terms of support or possession, regardless of technical pleading deficiencies.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never ignore a legal notice or motion to modify based on the assumption that the court is limited to the specific requests listed in the petition. In Texas family law, the 'best interest' standard gives judges wide latitude to rewrite child support and custody orders once their jurisdiction is invoked by a general allegation of changed circumstances. Failing to answer a 'minor' petition can result in a major, unexpected legal obligation that is nearly impossible to reverse on appeal."
Walther v. Walther
COA02
In Walther v. Walther, the Second Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s divorce decree that featured a "just and right" property division and permanent injunctions. The case involved significant marital misconduct, including the wife's unauthorized spending of $200,000 in community funds on luxury items and cosmetic surgery, as well as a history of family violence involving terroristic threats. The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the sale of the marital residence to compensate the husband for the wife's financial waste or by issuing permanent injunctions to ensure the husband's safety. Additionally, the court upheld the exclusion of an unsigned separation agreement, noting it failed to meet the evidentiary standards for authentication.
Litigation Takeaway
"Texas trial courts possess broad authority to order the sale of a marital home and issue permanent protective injunctions when there is documented evidence of financial waste, fraud, and family violence. Furthermore, practitioners and parties should be cautioned that unsigned settlement agreements are generally inadmissible without extrinsic evidence proving they represent a final, binding contract."