Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1236 opinions found
Estrada v. State
COA03
The Austin Court of Appeals affirmed Estrada’s conviction for repeated protective-order violations. The State proved two violations within twelve months: Estrada’s contact with the protected person at the airport despite a no-contact order, and a later incident in which the complainant called 911 reporting that he came to her home and strangled her. Although the complainant later recanted and signed an affidavit of non-prosecution, the court held the trial court properly admitted the 911 call and EMS records because they were created during an ongoing emergency and for medical-response purposes, making them admissible under hearsay principles and non-testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes. The court also found no abuse of discretion in excusing a juror for cause and affirmed the conviction.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-violence cases, a later recantation usually does not erase strong contemporaneous evidence. 911 audio, EMS records, photos, neighbor testimony, and other emergency-response evidence can outweigh a complainant’s later change of story and may strongly affect protective-order, custody, and divorce litigation. Also, reconciliation does not suspend a protective order—only a court can modify it."
Pettigrew v. State
COA10
In Pettigrew v. State, the Waco Court of Appeals upheld admission of a roughly twenty-year-old extraneous child-sex-abuse allegation under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.37. The defendant argued the statute was unconstitutional as applied because the prior allegation was stale, uncorroborated, never reported to police, and previously deemed “unsubstantiated” by CPS. The court rejected that argument, emphasizing that the trial court followed the statute’s safeguards by holding the required hearing, finding a reasonable juror could believe the extraneous act beyond a reasonable doubt, and conducting Rule 403 balancing. On the evidentiary issue, the court held the prior allegation was highly probative because it closely resembled the charged conduct, and the State had significant need for the evidence in a credibility-driven case. The court therefore held the statute was not unconstitutional as applied and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony.
Litigation Takeaway
"Old, uncorroborated, or previously “unsubstantiated” sexual-abuse allegations may still carry significant evidentiary weight when they closely resemble current accusations and credibility is central. For family-law litigants, that means you cannot rely on remoteness or an agency’s non-substantiation label alone; you must either build a strong similarity-and-risk argument or attack the allegation’s reliability, dissimilarity, and prejudicial effect in a focused way."
Bradford v. State
COA10
In Bradford v. State, the Waco Court of Appeals held that a six-year-old child’s three out-of-court identifications of her assailant were admissible as excited utterances under Texas Rule of Evidence 803(2), even though the trial court declined to admit them under Article 38.072. The court focused on whether the child remained dominated by fear, pain, and emotional shock from the assault, and concluded that the record showed continuous stress from the immediate porch disclosure through later hospital statements. The court also rejected the Confrontation Clause challenge, reasoning that the statements were spontaneous, made to the child’s mother during crisis and treatment, and were non-testimonial rather than formal accusations for prosecution. The conviction was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"If a child’s abuse disclosure does not fit a specialized hearsay statute, do not assume admissibility is lost. Build a Rule 803(2) record showing spontaneity, timing, visible distress, injuries, and continuing trauma; in family court, that can support admission of immediate child disclosures in emergency custody, protective-order, and supervised-possession disputes. To defeat admission, focus on reflection, prompting, intervening calm, and litigation-driven questioning."
Sheehan v. Sheehan
COA11
In Sheehan v. Sheehan, the divorce decree awarded the wife $64,661.44 from a BB&T account in the husband’s name, but he later depleted the account and failed to deliver the funds. On enforcement, the husband argued that a money judgment would improperly modify the decree because the specific account no longer contained the money. The Eleventh Court of Appeals rejected that argument, holding that Texas Family Code §§ 9.002, 9.006, and especially 9.010 allow a trial court to enforce an existing property award through a money judgment when direct delivery of the awarded property is no longer an adequate remedy. Because the decree had already awarded the wife that sum, reducing the undelivered award to a money judgment did not change the substantive property division; it simply implemented it. The court also affirmed attorney’s fees under § 9.014.
Litigation Takeaway
"A spouse cannot defeat a divorce decree’s property award by draining the account or liquidating the asset from which payment was supposed to come. If the decree already awarded a sum certain, the court can enforce that award with a money judgment—and attorney’s fees—without impermissibly modifying the decree."
Fuhrman v. Fuhrman
COA09
In Fuhrman v. Fuhrman, the Ninth Court of Appeals held that detailed tax-allocation provisions in an agreed divorce decree could be enforced as a contract in a separate post-divorce civil suit. The decree required Deloitte to prepare the parties’ 2020 returns, made Douglas responsible for the first $270,000 of 2020 federal income tax, and required the parties to split any excess equally. After Douglas paid his tax liability and demanded reimbursement, Nancy refused, arguing in part that Douglas had not fully performed because he did not provide a K-1. The court rejected that argument, concluding the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Douglas performed, tendered performance, or was excused, and that Nancy breached by failing to pay her allocated share. Because Douglas supported his calculation with returns, testimony, and a spreadsheet, the court affirmed a $187,244 damages award and $30,782.58 in attorney’s fees.
Litigation Takeaway
"If an agreed divorce decree allocates a financial obligation with commercial-contract precision, a former spouse may be able to enforce it later through a straightforward breach-of-contract suit and recover fees. For litigators, the lesson is to draft tax, indemnity, reimbursement, and equalization clauses with clear formulas, deadlines, and document-sharing duties—and to prove or defend those claims with actual evidence, not generalized complaints."
In the Interest of S.M.T. and S.J.T., Children
COA14
In a pending SAPCR, the appellant tried to immediately appeal trial-court orders denying motions to correct the reporter’s record and clerk’s record. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals applied the final-judgment rule, noted that interlocutory orders are appealable only when a statute expressly authorizes it, and found no statute permitting an interlocutory appeal from record-correction rulings. Because the challenged orders were purely interlocutory and did not dispose of all parties and claims, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"You cannot create appellate jurisdiction by appealing a procedural ruling about the contents of the record. In family-law cases, record-correction disputes usually must be handled through the proper correction procedures, preserved for review after a final judgment, or—if truly extraordinary—addressed by mandamus rather than a stand-alone interlocutory appeal."
In re R.H. and E.H.
COA11
The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed termination of the mother’s parental rights to newborn twins after concluding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s best-interest finding under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2). The court focused on the mother’s methamphetamine use throughout pregnancy, the twins’ positive drug tests at birth, ongoing domestic violence involving the father, the mother’s repeated decision to allow the father back into her life despite assaults, inconsistent NICU visitation, unsafe attempts to breastfeed despite hospital warnings, and refusal to cooperate with the Department’s testing, safety-planning, and service efforts. Applying the clear-and-convincing standard and the Holley best-interest factors, the court held the trial court could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction that the mother’s instability, poor judgment, and inability to protect the children would continue, making termination in the twins’ best interest.
Litigation Takeaway
"Drug use during pregnancy, continued exposure to a violent partner, and resistance to services can collectively support a best-interest finding even when a parent offers sympathetic explanations. In both CPS and private conservatorship cases, courts look for concrete protective change—not promises—and will treat past endangering conduct as strong evidence of future risk."
In the Interest of O.A., a Minor Child
COA05
In this case, a father sought to reduce his monthly child support payments, claiming his income had decreased and he had two additional children to support. The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to deny the modification. The court emphasized that under Texas Family Code § 156.401(a), a person seeking a change must prove a 'material and substantial change' by providing clear evidence of both their financial situation at the time of the original order and their current circumstances. Because the father failed to admit recent financial documents like pay stubs into evidence—relying instead on testimony and outdated tax returns—the court held he did not meet his legal burden of proof.
Litigation Takeaway
"To successfully modify child support, you must present a complete evidentiary record; testimony alone is often insufficient without supporting documents like current pay stubs and tax returns to prove a material change in financial circumstances."
Unger Texas Stone, LP and Shelia Unger v. Deere Credit, Inc.
COA11
The Eastland Court of Appeals reversed a restricted-appeal default judgment entered against an individual defendant and a limited partnership. The court held that Shelia Unger’s signed pro se letter, which denied liability, asserted that payments had been made and the equipment returned, and asked the court to dismiss the suit, was sufficient to constitute an answer on her own behalf because Texas courts liberally construe informal pro se filings that give fair notice of a defensive position. The same letter could not serve as a valid appearance for the limited partnership because a non-attorney cannot represent an entity. Even so, the court held the trial court erred by treating the record as though no response existed and by signing a default judgment the same day the motion was filed, without notice or an opportunity for the entity to cure the representation defect. The judgment was reversed and remanded as to both defendants.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-law-adjacent default practice, any timely pro se filing by an individual that disputes the claims may defeat a no-answer default, even if informal. And if a business entity attempts to respond through a non-lawyer, the safer course is to force counsel to appear and give notice and a chance to cure—not rush to default—because due-process defects can unravel the judgment on restricted appeal."
In re Diamond
COA05
In this original proceeding, the Dallas Court of Appeals denied a relator's petition for writ of mandamus challenging temporary orders and a related income withholding order issued during a SAPCR modification case. The court applied the standard set forth in In re Prudential, determining that the relator failed to prove the trial court clearly abused its discretion or that there was no adequate remedy by ordinary appeal. Beyond the merits, the court took the significant procedural step of striking the relator's petition and appendix for containing unredacted sensitive information, such as minor children's identifying data, in violation of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9.
Litigation Takeaway
"Urgency in family law modification cases does not automatically entitle a party to mandamus relief; you must still provide a record that proves a clear abuse of discretion and the inadequacy of a standard appeal. Additionally, always double-check your redactions, as a violation of Rule 9.9 regarding sensitive data can lead the court to strike your entire filing."