Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
946 opinions found
Protection of Sarah K. Wallis v. Alexis M. Etheridge
COA12
After Sarah Wallis applied for a protective order against Alexis Etheridge, the trial court denied the application but ordered Wallis—the unsuccessful petitioner—to pay $1,110 in attorney's fees to Etheridge’s counsel. Wallis appealed both the denial and the fee award. The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the protective order because Wallis failed to file a reporter's record, forcing the court to presume the evidence supported the trial court’s ruling. However, the court reversed the attorney’s fee award, ruling that Texas Family Code § 81.005 only authorizes fees against a party found to have committed family violence. Since there was no finding that Wallis committed violence, the trial court abused its discretion by shifting the fee burden to her.
Litigation Takeaway
"Prevailing as a respondent in a protective order case does not automatically trigger a right to attorney's fees. Under the Texas Family Code, fees are generally reserved for 'bad actors' found to have committed family violence; otherwise, a respondent must successfully pursue formal sanctions for groundless or bad-faith filings to recover their legal costs."
McNamara v. Bartolomei
COA04
McNamara sued his former attorney for defamation per se following a statement made in a court-ordered response during a habeas proceeding. The trial court granted summary judgment for the attorney on two independent grounds: attorney immunity and the judicial-proceedings privilege. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that McNamara's failure to challenge the judicial-proceedings privilege on appeal required affirmance under the unchallenged independent-ground rule. Substantively, the court held that the judicial-proceedings privilege provides absolute immunity for statements made in the course of litigation, meaning defamation claims based on such statements are barred even if the statements are false or made with malice.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas, statements made in pleadings, affidavits, or other court filings are protected by an absolute judicial-proceedings privilege, shielding parties and counsel from defamation liability regardless of malice. Furthermore, if a trial court grants summary judgment on multiple grounds, an appellant must challenge every single ground in their brief, or the appellate court will automatically affirm the ruling."
Salinas v. Tovar
COA13
In Salinas v. Tovar, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court could compel a defendant to produce his cell phone and iCloud data for forensic examination in an invasion of privacy suit involving allegations of illegal recording. The court analyzed the "act of production" doctrine under the Fifth Amendment, which provides that the physical act of handing over a device is a testimonial communication that confirms the device's existence and the party's control over it. Because the defendant faced potential criminal liability, and the plaintiff failed to prove that his possession of the phone was a "foregone conclusion," the court held that the order compelling production violated the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. The court distinguished between permissible orders to preserve evidence and unconstitutional orders to affirmatively produce it.
Litigation Takeaway
"The Fifth Amendment's "act of production" doctrine can shield cell phones and digital devices from forensic discovery in civil cases if the act of turning them over confirms the party's possession of potentially incriminating evidence. To successfully compel production, a litigator must establish the device's existence and the opponent's possession through independent evidence—such as service provider records—to satisfy the "foregone conclusion" exception."
Antonio Munoz Aserradero, LLC v. Thomas
COA12
In Antonio Munoz Aserradero, LLC v. Thomas, a worker was injured during a 'try-out' day at a sawmill. The employer sought to dismiss the worker's negligence lawsuit, arguing that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy applied because the worker was an 'employee' as a matter of law, pointing to a generated pay stub and the payment of medical benefits. The Tyler Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's refusal to grant a directed verdict for the employer. The court reasoned that 'employee' status requires a 'contract of hire' based on mutual assent and a promise of payment. Because testimony suggested the parties were only testing the arrangement and would 'talk about employment' later, there was a genuine dispute for the jury to decide whether a contract actually existed at the time of the injury.
Litigation Takeaway
"Employment status is determined by the fundamentals of contract formation—offer, acceptance, and a clear agreement on pay—rather than just payroll records or insurance payments. In family law disputes over income or earning capacity, you can challenge a spouse's claimed 'employment' (or lack thereof) by looking past administrative labels to see if a valid 'contract of hire' was ever actually formed."
Thomas v. State
COA04
In Thomas v. State, a defendant challenged his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove 'penetration' because the complainant denied full vaginal entry and used the phrase 'tried to penetrate.' The Fourth Court of Appeals analyzed the Penal Code and established case law, determining that penetration does not require full entry; rather, any contact more intrusive than the outer vaginal lips is sufficient. The court found that the complainant's testimony regarding 'pushing in' and sustained inward pressure for ten to twenty minutes allowed a rational jury to infer penetration. Additionally, the court addressed a dispute over jury readbacks, holding that trial courts have broad discretion under Article 36.28 to provide only the specific testimony in dispute rather than a comprehensive replay. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence legally sufficient and no abuse of discretion in the trial court's limited readback.
Litigation Takeaway
"Legal 'penetration' in sexual abuse allegations—whether in a criminal trial or a family law SAPCR—does not require full entry; evidence of any intrusion beyond the outer labia, such as sustained inward pressure or 'pushing in,' is sufficient to support a finding of abuse. When dealing with jury readbacks or selective quoting of the record, attorneys must make specific objections that match their appellate theories to avoid preservation traps."
King v. State
COA06
In King v. State, a father was convicted of knowingly causing serious bodily injury to his 28-month-old child by omission after failing to provide food or water for over 15 hours, resulting in severe dehydration and malnutrition. On appeal, King challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence regarding his mental state. The Texarkana Court of Appeals analyzed the case using the 'cumulative force' doctrine for circumstantial evidence, looking at the child's confinement, the father's exclusive control, and the obviousness of the child's physical deterioration. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that a rational jury could infer the defendant acted 'knowingly' because he was aware his failure to provide basic necessities was reasonably certain to cause serious bodily injury.
Litigation Takeaway
"In neglect-based family law litigation, you can prove a parent's 'knowing' endangerment without a confession by building a narrative around exclusive control, a documented timeline of deprivation, and the objective, observable physical decline of the child."
Cisneros v. Leal
COA04
After a minor passenger suffered catastrophic injuries in a car crash caused by a minor driver who had been drinking at several adults' homes, the victim sued the homeowners under Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code § 2.02(c). The trial court granted summary judgment for the homeowners, but the Fourth Court of Appeals reversed. The court analyzed the plain text of the 2005 statutory amendment, concluding that the Texas Legislature specifically created a civil cause of action against non-parent adults (21+) who knowingly provide alcohol to, or allow alcohol to be provided to, minors under 18 on premises they own or lease.
Litigation Takeaway
"Texas law provides a clear statutory path to hold non-parent adults liable for hosting underage drinking; family law practitioners can use this 'social host' liability to argue for restricted possession or supervision requirements when a parent’s household or social circle endangers a child through permissive alcohol use."
In Re Michelle Chase
COA05
In a Dallas County Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR), Michelle Chase challenged the trial court's jurisdiction. After her plea was denied, she sought a writ of mandamus from the Fifth Court of Appeals to compel a dismissal. The appellate court denied the request, finding that Chase failed to meet the high 'Prudential' standard: proving a clear abuse of discretion and showing that a regular appeal would not provide an adequate remedy. Additionally, the court struck her petition and record because they contained unredacted sensitive information—including Social Security numbers and children's names—violating Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9.
Litigation Takeaway
"Seeking emergency mandamus relief for jurisdictional disputes is an uphill battle that rarely bypasses the standard appeal process; more importantly, a failure to strictly redact a child's sensitive information can result in the court striking your filings and delaying your case."
In the Interest of V.R.C.
COA05
In a high-stakes custody dispute, a mother lost all access to her child after revoking a settlement agreement on the morning of her trial. She argued that her due process rights were violated because she expected the trial to be postponed due to the settlement. However, the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that since the postponement was contingent on the settlement she chose to break, the trial court was right to proceed immediately. The court also found that the mother failed to properly challenge evidence against her because she made "shotgun" objections rather than specific legal arguments for each document. Ultimately, the court upheld the decree denying her access to the child based on evidence of untreated addiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"A "ready" announcement for trial remains binding even if a settlement is reached; if that settlement fails, you must be prepared to go to trial immediately. Furthermore, general objections to a group of exhibits are insufficient to preserve your rights for an appeal—each piece of evidence requires a specific, individual objection."
T.L.H. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
COA03
In this case, a father (Timothy) appealed the trial court's order terminating his parental rights. His court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, stating that the appeal was frivolous and lacked merit. The Third Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record, specifically analyzing the trial court's endangerment findings under Subsections (D) and (E) as mandated by the 'In re N.G.' standard. The court also addressed the duration of appointed counsel's obligations under 'In re P.M.' The court held that the appeal was indeed frivolous, affirmed the termination order, and clarified that counsel's duties extend through the filing of a potential petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court.
Litigation Takeaway
"In parental termination appeals, an Anders brief does not trigger an automatic withdrawal; the appellate court must still perform a rigorous independent review of endangerment findings, and appointed counsel remains obligated to represent the client through the Texas Supreme Court level."