Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
946 opinions found
In re Allied Trust Insurance Company
COA01
In an insurance dispute with significant implications for family law discovery, the First Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief after a trial court refused to abate a lawsuit for alleged failure to satisfy conditions precedent. While the insurer argued that an examination under oath (EUO) was a mandatory prerequisite to litigation, the respondent claimed her severe PTSD necessitated a remote (Zoom) format, which the insurer refused. The court analyzed whether a 'total failure' to comply had occurred and held that because there were unresolved factual disputes regarding the reasonableness of the insurer's demands and the format of the performance, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the abatement.
Litigation Takeaway
"To successfully abate a case for non-compliance, you must first secure a court order defining the 'parameters of performance'; mere disagreement over the format of discovery (such as in-person vs. Zoom for a traumatized party) creates a factual dispute that prevents abatement from becoming mandatory."
Rolling Dough, Ltd. d/b/a Panera Bread v. Anyadike
COA14
A customer sued Panera Bread for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) after a manager accused her of theft and summoned the police during a dispute over a pre-paid order. Panera moved to dismiss the claim under the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act (TCPA), arguing the report was a matter of public concern. The Court of Appeals analyzed whether reporting criminal activity falls under the TCPA and whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case for IIED. The court held that reporting a crime is an exercise of free speech on a matter of public concern and that the plaintiff failed to provide clear and specific evidence of "extreme and outrageous" conduct, as false accusations of theft and summoning police do not meet the high legal threshold for IIED. The court reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss and remanded for the assessment of attorney's fees.
Litigation Takeaway
"Reporting suspected criminal activity to law enforcement is a protected matter of public concern under the TCPA; consequently, the TCPA serves as a powerful defensive shield to quickly dismiss retaliatory IIED claims and recover attorney’s fees in high-conflict disputes where the police are called."
Vodicka v. Tobolowsky
COA05
In Vodicka v. Tobolowsky, a judgment creditor sought to satisfy a multi-million dollar judgment by garnishing the debtors' airline miles. The Dallas Court of Appeals addressed whether service was effective under Rule 21a, whether Texas retained jurisdiction after the judgment was domesticated in Florida, and whether the trial court was required to value the miles. The court analyzed Rule 21a, concluding that service is legally complete upon deposit in the mail, and affirmed that Texas courts retain jurisdiction to enforce their judgments through ancillary proceedings. However, the court held that while airline miles are garnishable assets, the trial court committed reversible error by failing to assign them a specific monetary value. The case was remanded to determine the market value of the miles to ensure proper credit against the judgment balance.
Litigation Takeaway
"When enforcing a judgment or dividing property involving intangible assets like airline miles or reward points, you must provide the court with a specific monetary valuation (a 'valuation bridge') to ensure the judgment is legally complete and enforceable."
Humphrey v. State
COA05
In Humphrey v. State, the Fifth Court of Appeals addressed whether a jury's rejection of a self-defense claim was legally sufficient following a father's physical assault on a man he perceived as a threat to his daughter. The defendant argued his use of force was justified 'vigilante parenting.' The court analyzed the evidence under the Jackson v. Virginia standard, weighing conflicting testimony from the defendant's father against evidence of an ambush and third-party testimony regarding the defendant's retaliatory motives. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the jury is the sole arbiter of witness credibility and that a parent's subjective belief in 'protecting' a child does not override the legal requirement that force be immediately necessary and proportional.
Litigation Takeaway
"A criminal conviction resulting from 'vigilante parenting' can act as a 'silver bullet' in custody litigation, triggering presumptions against joint managing conservatorship and providing the evidence needed to restrict a parent's access under the Texas Family Code."
In re Jacob C. Luce and Lauren L. Gifford
COA05
Relators Jacob C. Luce and Lauren L. Gifford sought mandamus relief to compel a trial court to rule on a pending motion for default judgment. The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) did not address the merits of the case, focusing instead on a procedural defect in the petition's certification. Applying Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(k), the court analyzed whether the Relators' certification precisely matched the mandated language. Reaffirming its precedent of 'exceptionally strict' compliance, the court held that any deviation from the verbatim text of the rule is a fatal error. Because the Relators' certification failed to use the exact phraseology required by the 2026 rules, the court denied the petition without reaching the underlying legal issues.
Litigation Takeaway
"In the Dallas Court of Appeals, there is no 'substantial compliance' for mandamus certifications; attorneys must use a strict 'copy-paste' approach to the verbatim language in TRAP 52.3(k). Failing to update templates to the 2026 rule changes can result in an immediate procedural denial, which is especially dangerous in emergency family law matters where stays or custody are at stake."
In re Elizabeth Cavazos
COA05
Relator Elizabeth Cavazos sought a writ of mandamus and an emergency stay after a Dallas trial court struck her trial exhibits and related testimony on the eve of trial. The Dallas Court of Appeals analyzed the petition under the newly amended Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(k), which updated certification requirements in December 2025, and the established 'Prudential' standard for extraordinary relief. The court denied the petition, holding that the Relator's failure to include the mandatory certification language was a fatal procedural defect and, substantively, that the Relator failed to demonstrate that the evidentiary ruling lacked an adequate remedy by ordinary appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"In mandamus practice, technical compliance is just as critical as substantive merit; using outdated templates that fail to incorporate the December 2025 TRAP 52.3(k) certification language will result in summary denial, even in emergency circumstances. Furthermore, remember that striking evidence is rarely a 'mandamus-able' event unless it effectively terminates a party's ability to present their case entirely."
In re Richard Adame
COA05
In this mandamus proceeding, Relator Richard Adame sought to vacate a trial court order compelling the parties to arbitration. The Dallas Court of Appeals denied the petition without reaching the merits of the arbitration dispute because the Relator failed to provide a properly authenticated record. The court analyzed Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3 and 52.7, which require a relator to provide sworn or certified copies of every document material to the claim. Following the precedent in Walker v. Packer, the court held that because the Relator submitted unauthenticated documents, he failed to meet the threshold burden of providing a sufficient record to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.
Litigation Takeaway
"Procedural compliance is a threshold barrier in mandamus proceedings; you must ensure every document in your appellate record is strictly authenticated via certification or affidavit, as even a valid legal argument will be summarily denied if the record fails to meet the technical requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure."
Brown v. State
COA03
In Brown v. State, the Third Court of Appeals addressed a situation where an appellant's counsel failed to file a brief despite receiving multiple extensions and a final warning. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b), which protects appellants in criminal and quasi-criminal matters from losing their appeal due to attorney negligence. Because appellate courts cannot make factual findings regarding attorney-client communications, the court held that the appeal must be abated and remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the appellant still intends to prosecute the appeal or if counsel has abandoned the case.
Litigation Takeaway
"In parental termination or enforcement cases, do not expect an immediate 'default win' if the opposing party fails to file their brief; due process requirements will likely trigger a remand hearing that delays finality but offers a strategic chance to force a dilatory opponent to commit to the appeal or face dismissal."
Mitchell v. Mitchell
COA07
In *Mitchell v. Mitchell*, the appellant sought to suspend the enforcement of a judgment by filing a motion for a supersedeas bond. The trial court denied the request via an informal, handwritten notation on an unsigned order without conducting an evidentiary hearing or providing a legal rationale. Upon review, the Seventh Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24, which generally entitles a judgment debtor to supersede a judgment to preserve the status quo. The court determined that without a developed record or specific findings of fact, it could not properly review the trial court's denial for an abuse of discretion. Consequently, the appellate court invoked Rule 24.4(d) and remanded the case, ordering the trial court to take evidence and enter formal findings regarding the bond.
Litigation Takeaway
"Trial courts cannot effectively 'pocket veto' an appellant's right to stay a judgment; if a court denies a supersedeas bond without a hearing or explanation, practitioners can use TRAP 24.4(d) to compel a remand for formal findings and an evidentiary record."
In re Johnny Partain
COA13
Johnny Partain filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Thirteenth Court of Appeals seeking to challenge a Justice of the Peace's order regarding court costs in an eviction case. The Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Government Code § 22.221, which explicitly lists the judicial officers against whom an appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus (such as district and county judges) but notably excludes Justices of the Peace. The court held that because Justice Courts are not included in its general mandamus authority and because the relator failed to show that the writ was necessary to protect the court's jurisdiction over a pending appeal, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition. The case was dismissed, affirming that supervisory power over Justice Courts resides with District Courts.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never file a petition for writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals to challenge a Justice of the Peace's order. Because Justice Courts are not among the judicial officers listed in Texas Government Code § 22.221(b), the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to supervise them unless a writ is necessary to protect an existing appeal. Instead, you must seek mandamus relief in a District Court, which holds constitutional supervisory authority over inferior courts."