Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1216 opinions found
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."
The State of Texas for the Protection of M.D.J.
COA12
The Tyler Court of Appeals affirmed a protective order against Nicholas McKay, holding that the appeal was not moot despite the order’s expiration because the family-violence finding carries collateral consequences in later family-law cases. On the merits, the court applied deferential legal- and factual-sufficiency review and concluded that the applicant’s testimony about repeated physical abuse, threats to kill her, a firearm threat, and a threat involving the child—corroborated by injury photographs and audio recordings—was more than sufficient to support findings that family violence occurred and was likely to occur in the future. The respondent’s contrary evidence, including the applicant’s prior assault arrest and ordinary text exchanges, created credibility conflicts for the trial court but did not render the findings unsupported or unjust. The court also rejected other appellate complaints as moot, inadequately briefed, or unpreserved.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas protective-order cases, credible testimony plus basic corroboration like photos and recordings can be enough to sustain a family-violence finding on appeal, even when the respondent offers competing narratives or impeachment evidence. Treat every protective-order hearing as a high-stakes record-building event because the resulting family-violence finding can continue to affect custody, possession, and divorce litigation long after the order expires."
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."
Treadway v. State
COA12
In Treadway v. State, the Tyler Court of Appeals considered whether evidence that the defendant engaged in similar sexual misconduct with another child could be admitted after the defense argued the complainant fabricated her allegations. The court held the evidence was admissible under Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b) because it was offered for a non-character purpose—to rebut the fabrication defense—rather than to show propensity. The court also held the trial court acted within its discretion under Rule 403 because, in a credibility-driven child-abuse case, the evidence was highly probative and its value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you make fabrication, coaching, mistake, or accident a central theory, you may open the door to otherwise excluded other-acts evidence. In family cases involving child allegations, courts may admit similar prior-act evidence for a non-propensity purpose if it directly rebuts that theory and survives Rule 403 balancing."
Robert Link v. The State of Texas
COA12
The Tyler Court of Appeals affirmed Robert Link’s conviction for repeated violation of a protective order. The key dispute was identity: Link argued the State failed to prove he sent the June 29 and July 11, 2023 texts and calls because the communications came from spoofed or changing phone numbers and no carrier records directly tied those numbers to him. Applying Jackson v. Virginia and Texas circumstantial-evidence precedent, the court held the jury could rely on the cumulative force of the evidence, including the content of the messages, references to the parties’ DNA and protective-order disputes, Link’s prior pattern of unwanted contact, expert testimony explaining spoofing, and similar-transaction testimony from another former partner. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, that evidence allowed a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Link was the sender and that he repeatedly violated the protective order under Penal Code sections 25.072 and 25.07.
Litigation Takeaway
"Direct phone-company proof is helpful but not always necessary in protective-order enforcement cases. If anonymized texts, calls, or app messages contain details uniquely tied to the respondent and fit an established pattern of harassment, courts may find circumstantial evidence sufficient. For family-law litigators, the lesson is to build a narrative with preserved messages, context, timelines, corroborating witnesses, and pattern evidence rather than relying solely on digital subscriber records."
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."
Soma v. Winborne
COA12
In Soma v. Winborne, a husband sought restitution after he and his wife spent more than $200,000 building a home on the wife’s parents’ land, claiming they had been promised a parcel of the property. After a bench trial, the court found there was no contract, no oral promise to gift land, and no agreement to convey land. Applying Texas unjust-enrichment law, the appellate court held that a landowner’s receipt of a benefit is not enough; the plaintiff must prove the benefit was obtained by fraud, duress, or undue advantage. Because the expenditures were voluntary improvements to land the couple knew they did not own, and the factfinder rejected the alleged promise of future title, the court affirmed the take-nothing judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"If marital funds are used to improve land titled in parents, in-laws, or other third parties, do not rely on unjust enrichment as a fallback. In Texas, voluntary improvements to another’s land are not recoverable absent proof of wrongful conduct such as fraud, duress, or undue advantage, so family-law counsel should document ownership expectations and plead specific legal theories early."
In re Office of the Attorney General of Texas
COA03
In this mandamus proceeding, the Texas Office of the Attorney General challenged a trial court order transferring an entire SAPCR from Texas to Arizona, including the child-support portion of the case. The court held that even if custody-related issues could be transferred under UCCJEA-type principles, child support is governed separately by UIFSA. Because Texas issued the support order and Father still lived in Texas, Texas retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over support under Family Code section 159.205(a). The court also concluded that Family Code section 155.301 authorizes only intrastate transfers, not interstate transfer of support jurisdiction. Because the transfer order was interlocutory and not immediately appealable, mandamus was the proper remedy. The court further rejected the argument that the support-transfer language was merely a clerical error correctable by nunc pro tunc, holding the mistake was judicial. Mandamus was conditionally granted to vacate the order insofar as it transferred child support to Arizona.
Litigation Takeaway
"Custody jurisdiction and support jurisdiction do not automatically travel together. Even when another state may become the proper forum for conservatorship or possession issues, Texas keeps child-support jurisdiction under UIFSA so long as the obligor, obligee, or child still resides here, absent a statutory exception. Family lawyers should draft transfer motions and orders with precision, carve out support expressly, and treat an improper interstate support transfer as a mandamus issue."
Richard Pasillas v. The State of Texas
COA07
In Pasillas v. State, the Amarillo Court of Appeals considered whether admitting muted body-camera footage showing a non-testifying complainant crying, gesturing, and displaying injuries violated the Confrontation Clause. Rather than deciding that constitutional question, the court assumed error and analyzed harm under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(a) and the Langham factors. The court held any assumed error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the video was cumulative of other evidence admitted without objection, including officer observations, photographs of injuries, EMT testimony recounting the complainant’s description of the assault, and Pasillas’s separate admission establishing the second predicate assault. The conviction for continuous violence against the family was therefore affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"A good evidentiary objection may not win on appeal if the same fact came in elsewhere without objection. In family-violence-related litigation, lawyers must preserve error across every parallel evidence source, while proponents should build redundancy so the judgment can survive harmless-error review even if one item is later excluded."