Opinion Library

General trial issues

Hill v. State

COA10

In Hill v. State, a defendant appealed the denial of his motion to recuse the trial judge, alleging bias based on the judge's involvement in plea negotiations, the removal of the defendant’s spouse from the courtroom for a policy violation in an unrelated matter, and an ex parte text message to the prosecutor asking for a status update. The Tenth Court of Appeals analyzed these incidents under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18b, determining that the judge's responses to settlement inquiries were invited by counsel and that the courtroom enforcement was routine administration rather than personal animus. The court held that the denial of the recusal motion was not an abuse of discretion because the evidence did not establish that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned or that he possessed a disqualifying personal bias.

Litigation Takeaway

"To successfully recuse a judge, you must build a record showing specific, targeted bias against a party rather than mere courtroom administration or a judge's refusal to accept certain settlement terms. Routine enforcement of courtroom decorum and non-substantive 'status-update' communications are generally insufficient to prove that a judge's impartiality is reasonably in question."

General trial issues

Thomas v. Clark

COA02

In Thomas v. Clark, the plaintiff's defamation suit was dismissed for want of prosecution (DWOP) after he failed to request timely citation, failed to submit a scheduling order, and missed a dismissal hearing. Thomas filed an unverified motion to reinstate, arguing excusable neglect. The Second Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that a trial court possesses both inherent authority and statutory power under Rule 165a to manage its docket regardless of the case's underlying merits. The court held that because Rule 165a(3) explicitly requires a motion to reinstate to be verified, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion due to the verification defect, even if the non-appearance was accidental.

Litigation Takeaway

"Procedural technicalities can defeat even the most meritorious claims. If a case is dismissed for want of prosecution, the motion to reinstate must be verified; failing to include a proper verification is a fatal error that allows the court to deny reinstatement regardless of your excuse for the delay."

Property Division

JLV Asset Management, Inc. v. The Chicken Place, Inc.

COA07

In a dispute over a promissory note, the parties disagreed on whether a payment made on the one-year anniversary of the contract's effective date satisfied a requirement to pay 'within one year.' The court applied the 'anniversary rule,' which dictates that unless a contract specifies a different count (like 365 days), 'one year' includes the calendar anniversary of the start date. Although the trial court erred by allowing a jury to interpret the unambiguous contract, the appellate court held the error was harmless because the jury’s conclusion aligned with the correct legal construction. The court ultimately held that the anniversary-date payment was timely as a matter of law.

Litigation Takeaway

"Under the Texas 'anniversary rule,' an obligation to perform 'within one year' includes the calendar anniversary of the effective date. To avoid deadline disputes in Mediated Settlement Agreements or Divorce Decrees, practitioners should define 'year' specifically or, preferably, use certain dates and times for performance rather than relative windows."

General trial issues

Ex parte Paul Daniel Dedrick

COA02

In a prosecution for child sexual abuse, the defense was granted a mistrial after the State disclosed bodycam footage mid-trial that it had previously represented was unavailable. The defendant subsequently sought habeas relief, arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred a retrial. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals analyzed whether the prosecutor's late disclosure was intentionally designed to 'goad' the defense into moving for a mistrial. The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief, holding that because the delay resulted from technical errors, agency communication failures, and ransomware issues—rather than a deliberate tactical ambush—double jeopardy did not bar the State from retrying the case.

Litigation Takeaway

"When seeking 'nuclear' remedies like striking pleadings or excluding evidence due to late-disclosed government records (such as bodycam or CPS files), you must build a record of deliberate gamesmanship; mere bureaucratic dysfunction or technical errors will typically only result in a continuance or fee-shifting rather than case-ending sanctions."

Child Custody

Ray v. State

COA02

In Ray v. State, the Second Court of Appeals addressed a discrepancy between a trial court's oral pronouncement of a five-year sentence for child pornography and a written judgment that erroneously recorded a ten-year sentence. The court analyzed the 'oral pronouncement doctrine,' which dictates that the sentence delivered in open court controls over a conflicting written document. Applying Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b), the court held that it had the authority to modify the written judgment to 'speak the truth' and reflect the actual five-year sentence, even within an Anders proceeding where the appeal was otherwise found to be frivolous.

Litigation Takeaway

"Always verify a party's criminal sentence by reviewing the reporter's record of the oral pronouncement rather than relying solely on the written judgment; a clerical error in the written record could significantly shorten a perpetrator's incarceration, potentially compromising safety plans and visitation schedules in related family law litigation."

City of Kingsville, et al. v. Tijerina

COA13

In a dispute over the timeliness of recall petitions, a petitioner filed her documents 31 days after the initiating affidavit, exceeding the 30-day mandatory window established by the City of Kingsville Charter. Although a city official provided the petitioner with a form stating the deadline began at a later date, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that the Charter’s plain language controlled and required strict compliance. The court analyzed the Charter as organic law, concluding that official misinformation cannot override mandatory filing deadlines or create a ministerial duty where the petitioner failed to satisfy the law. The court reversed the trial court's grant of mandamus, holding it was an abuse of discretion to excuse a late filing based on equitable considerations.

Litigation Takeaway

"Never rely on a clerk or court coordinator’s calculation of a deadline; official misinformation or misleading forms provided by court staff do not excuse a failure to strictly comply with mandatory statutory or jurisdictional timelines."

In Re Kelvin Lorran White

COA05

Relator Kelvin Lorran White sought a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to rule on pending motions and comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a regarding a motion to recuse. The Dallas Court of Appeals analyzed whether the trial court's subsequent referral of the recusal motion rendered the petition moot and whether a delay of less than one month constituted an abuse of discretion. The court held that the Rule 18a issue was moot because the trial court acted after the mandamus was filed. Furthermore, the court denied the remaining claims because the Relator failed to provide a record showing a formal demand for a ruling or an unreasonable period of delay.

Litigation Takeaway

"To compel a trial court to rule via mandamus, you must create a meticulous record showing a formal demand for a ruling and an unreasonable delay (typically months, not weeks); however, simply filing a mandamus petition can often 'break the pocket veto' by prompting a trial judge to finally take the required action."

Castillo v. Martinez

COA08

In Castillo v. Martinez, the Appellants attempted to appeal a trial court's dismissal order several months after the deadline, arguing that the underlying judgment was 'void' and that a subsequent order denying their motion to vacate restarted the appellate clock. The El Paso Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, which dictates strict timelines for filing a notice of appeal. The court held that even if a judgment is legally defective or void, it still becomes final for purposes of appeal and triggers the mandatory 30- or 90-day filing window. Because the Appellants failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the original judgment, the court dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, ruling that a party cannot circumvent appellate deadlines by simply labeling a judgment void.

Litigation Takeaway

"A judgment's alleged 'voidness' does not stop the appellate clock; practitioners must file their notice of appeal within the standard 30- or 90-day window following the final decree, as a later order denying a motion to vacate will not restart the timetable for a direct appeal."

Family Violence & Protective Orders

Foley v. State

COA10

In Foley v. State, the Tenth Court of Appeals addressed whether a conviction for failure to stop and render aid requires proof that a driver had subjective knowledge they struck a person. The defendant argued he was unaware he had hit a cyclist due to poor lighting and road conditions. The court analyzed Texas Transportation Code § 550.021 and clarified that the State must only prove the driver knew an accident occurred and that the circumstances were such that injury or death was "reasonably likely." Holding that the extensive vehicle damage and debris field created a "reasonable likelihood" of injury, the court affirmed the conviction, ruling that a defendant\'s self-serving denial of knowledge does not override objective evidence.

Litigation Takeaway

"A party\'s subjective claim of ignorance regarding harm can be overcome by objective evidence; in family law cases involving reckless conduct or vehicular altercations, focus on proving that the circumstances made injury "reasonably likely" rather than trying to prove the perpetrator\'s internal state of mind."

City of Houston v. Castillo

COA14

In City of Houston v. Castillo, a plaintiff sued the City following a motor vehicle collision, prompting the City to file a Rule 91a motion to dismiss based on governmental immunity. The City argued the plaintiff failed to affirmatively negate statutory exceptions for emergency responses. When the trial court denied the motion, the City filed an interlocutory appeal and subsequently sought mandamus relief after the trial court issued discovery orders during the appeal's pendency. The court of appeals held that a Rule 91a motion asserting immunity is a jurisdictional challenge that triggers the mandatory automatic stay of all trial proceedings under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(b). While the court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss—finding the plaintiff was not required to negate exceptions not implicated by the petition—it granted mandamus relief to vacate the discovery orders entered in violation of the statutory stay.

Litigation Takeaway

"An immunity-based Rule 91a motion serves as a powerful jurisdictional "pause button." If a governmental entity appeals the denial of such a motion, Section 51.014(b) triggers an automatic stay that strips the trial court of the power to act; any discovery or enforcement orders entered during this time are vulnerable to being vacated via mandamus."