Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
946 opinions found
Lomerson v. Lyle Reid & Associates, L.L.C.
COA07
In a property damage dispute involving complex water drainage issues, the plaintiff failed to timely designate expert witnesses required to prove causation. The defendants moved for a no-evidence summary judgment, arguing that without admissible expert testimony, the plaintiff could not meet his burden of proof. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6, which mandates the automatic exclusion of untimely evidence unless the proponent establishes 'good cause' or a 'lack of unfair surprise or prejudice.' The court held that the plaintiff's claim of 'mistake' or counsel inadvertence did not satisfy these exceptions. Because expert testimony was necessary for the technical issue of causation, the court affirmed the summary judgment, effectively dismissing the case.
Litigation Takeaway
"Missing an expert designation deadline is more than a discovery hiccup—it is a potential case-killer. Under TRCP 193.6, late-filed experts are automatically excluded from consideration at the summary judgment stage unless you can prove a specific legal exception. In family law matters involving business valuations, property tracing, or custody evaluations, failing to adhere to the scheduling order can result in a 'no-evidence' judgment that ends your claim before trial."
Padilla-Madden v. Sandoval
COA04
A Texas resident sued an Alabama resident for breach of an oral agreement to share compensation earned as a trustee. The nonresident defendant challenged Texas jurisdiction via a special appearance, which the trial court denied. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the defendant purposefully availed herself of the Texas forum by traveling to San Antonio to execute the trust agreement and by managing trust assets stored in a San Antonio safe deposit box. The court held that the breach of contract claim related directly to these contacts because the defendant’s appointment and performance as trustee—the source of the disputed funds—were anchored in Texas.
Litigation Takeaway
"Nonresidents who physically travel to Texas to execute legal documents or manage assets in Texas-based safe deposit boxes provide sufficient 'minimum contacts' for Texas courts to exercise specific jurisdiction over them in disputes related to those documents or assets."
In the Interest of A.F.C. and A.D.C., Children
COA04
In this SAPCR appeal, the appellant attempted to vacate a trial court's judgment by filing a 'Motion for Nonsuit' in the appellate court. The appellee agreed to the dismissal of the appeal but vigorously objected to vacating the underlying order. The Fourth Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.1 and 43.2, concluding that an appellate court cannot unilaterally vacate a trial court's judgment without an agreement between the parties or an independent legal justification like mootness. Consequently, the court held that the motion would be treated strictly as a motion to dismiss the appeal, leaving the trial court's judgment intact and enforceable against the appellant.
Litigation Takeaway
"An appellate 'nonsuit' is not a reset button; unless you have a signed agreement from the opposing party to vacate the judgment, dismissing your appeal will leave the trial court's original order fully enforceable."
Ex parte Victor Elias Martinez
COA03
Victor Elias Martinez was detained for kidnapping in September 2024. Several months later, while still in custody, he was charged with aggravated sexual assault arising from the same series of events. Martinez argued that under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 17.151, he was entitled to a bond reduction because the State was not ready for trial within 90 days of his initial arrest. The Third Court of Appeals analyzed the statutory distinction between a 'criminal action' (the specific prosecution) and a 'criminal episode' (the underlying facts). The court held that the 90-day clock for the State's readiness applies to the specific charge for which the person is detained, and the clock resets with each new, distinct criminal charge. Therefore, the State's failure to indict on the initial kidnapping charge did not require a bond reduction for the later sexual assault charge.
Litigation Takeaway
"The 90-day 'mandatory release' rule for defendants in custody is not an absolute shield; filing new, distinct charges for related conduct resets the clock, providing family law litigants a strategic path to maintain the detention of a dangerous party during a divorce or custody battle."
Castleberry v. State
COA04
In Castleberry v. State, the defendant challenged a pretrial suppression ruling regarding evidence obtained during an out-of-county investigative detention. At trial, however, defense counsel affirmatively stated 'no objection' when the State introduced the challenged evidence. The Fourth Court of Appeals analyzed the issue of waiver, determining that an affirmative statement of 'no objection' generally forfeits any complaint regarding a pretrial ruling unless the record clearly shows an intent to preserve the issue. The court further reviewed the merits of the detention, deferring to the trial court's resolution of conflicting testimony regarding when officers developed reasonable suspicion. The court held that the appellant waived his evidentiary challenges and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the detention lawful based on a suspected felony.
Litigation Takeaway
"Saying 'no objection' at trial is a trap that can instantly waive your right to appeal a pretrial ruling. Even if you fought a motion to suppress recorded calls or private data before trial, you must renew your objection or state that your lack of objection is 'subject to the prior motion' to preserve your record for appeal."
R.C. and P.K. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
COA03
In this parental termination case, the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) intervened due to methamphetamine use and domestic violence. Although the mother was granted a 'monitored return' of her children after showing initial progress, she eventually allowed the abusive father back into the home and continued to struggle with sobriety. The trial court terminated the rights of both parents, a decision the Third Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court found that the child's positive drug test and the mother's failure to shield the children from a violent partner constituted clear endangerment, holding that the children's safety and need for stability outweighed the parents' partial compliance with service plans.
Litigation Takeaway
"Technical compliance with a service plan (like getting housing or attending classes) does not protect a parent from termination if they fail to address the underlying dangers of drug use or abusive relationships; a 'monitored return' is a period of high scrutiny where any contact with a prohibited abuser or a positive drug test can be fatal to the case."
In re Curtis Johnson
COA04
In this Bexar County divorce case, the Relator sought a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on a pending request. The Relator filed the petition for mandamus only ten days after making the formal request to the trial court. The Fourth Court of Appeals analyzed the claim under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a), noting that for mandamus relief to be granted, a relator must prove the trial court failed to perform a ministerial act within a 'reasonable time.' The court held that a ten-day window does not constitute an unreasonable delay or a refusal to act, and therefore denied the petition.
Litigation Takeaway
"Appellate courts will not use mandamus to manage a trial court's docket or reward litigation impatience; you must allow a reasonable period—usually significantly longer than ten days—to pass and build a record of the court's failure to act before seeking extraordinary relief."
In re I.R.D. and C.R.D.
COA04
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's order terminating the parental rights of a mother and father following their failure to overcome substance abuse and domestic instability. The parents challenged the 'best interest' finding, but the appellate court ruled that their persistent methamphetamine use, a domestic violence incident involving the paternal grandmother, and their expulsion from Family Drug Court provided clear and convincing evidence that termination was necessary for the children's safety. The court emphasized that a parent's past conduct, particularly regarding drug use and failure to complete court-ordered services, is a reliable indicator of future performance.
Litigation Takeaway
"Failure to comply with court-ordered services, particularly expulsion from specialty programs like Family Drug Court, creates a nearly insurmountable evidentiary hurdle for parents in a termination suit. Once the court finds evidence of endangerment or drug use, those findings are heavily weighted in the 'best interest' analysis, making it vital for parents to demonstrate consistent, positive changes during the pendency of the case to avoid a permanent loss of rights."
City of Houston v. Varnado
COA14
After Rodney Varnado was injured in a collision involving a high-speed police pursuit, he sued the City of Houston for negligence. The City filed a Rule 91a motion to dismiss, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the lawsuit failed to overcome governmental immunity. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) and the Transportation Code, determining that when a plaintiff's own factual allegations "plausibly implicate" an emergency response, the plaintiff has the initial burden to specifically plead facts that negate the TTCA’s immunity exceptions. The court held that because Varnado's petition described a pursuit but failed to allege specific "reckless disregard" or violations of statutes governing emergency vehicles, the claim was legally baseless and must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"When suing governmental agents for injuries during high-conflict enforcement actions, like serving a protective order or executing a child-attachment writ, general negligence pleading is insufficient; you must specifically plead facts that negate the 'emergency-response exception' or risk immediate dismissal under Rule 91a."
Elaine T. Marshall, et al. v. Preston Marshall
COA14
In this long-running fiduciary dispute, a beneficiary challenged a trustee’s "Wyoming Maneuver"—the merger of Texas-based trusts into Wyoming entities to avoid local oversight. After the trial court issued a temporary injunction in 2017 to preserve the status quo, the trustees later moved to dissolve it, arguing that several trusts had since terminated and the litigation had matured. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the request using the mootness doctrine for the terminated trusts and the "change in circumstances" standard for the active ones. The court held that while the injunction must be dissolved for trusts that have reached their natural termination, it remains in force for active trusts because the passage of time and completion of discovery do not eliminate the underlying risk of asset dissipation or fiduciary breach.
Litigation Takeaway
"A temporary injunction is a resilient tool that does not expire simply because a case lingers for years; it remains the most effective way to prevent a spouse or trustee from 'decanting' assets into out-of-state jurisdictions. To dissolve an aging injunction, you must prove a qualitative change in the case's risk profile or show that the specific assets have already been distributed according to trust terms."