Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
946 opinions found
McKissick v. State
COA11
After Johnathan McKissick was convicted of injury to a child, he appealed on the grounds of a 'material variance' because the child's name in the indictment (his birth name) differed from the name proven at trial (his adopted name). The Eleventh Court of Appeals analyzed whether this discrepancy prejudiced the defendant's defense or created a risk of double jeopardy under the Gollihar framework. The court held that the variance was immaterial because the defendant was not surprised by the identity of the victim and his defense was not hindered. Additionally, the court found no violation of discovery mandates under the Michael Morton Act, as the defendant had signed a discovery waiver and could not prove the State intentionally suppressed evidence discovered after the trial.
Litigation Takeaway
"A child's legal name change resulting from an adoption or termination proceeding does not create a 'material variance' that would invalidate a parallel criminal conviction, provided the defendant has notice of the victim's identity and is not prejudiced in their defense."
In re Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc.
COA09
In re Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. involved a discovery dispute where a relator sought to shield alleged trade secrets from production. The Beaumont Court of Appeals analyzed the burden-shifting framework of Texas Rule of Evidence 507 and the procedural requirements of Rule of Civil Procedure 193.3, concluding that the relator provided only general categorical descriptions of documents rather than a specific privilege log. The court held that the relator's failure to affirmatively request an in-camera inspection prevented the trial court from making a reasoned determination on the privilege, thereby rendering the petition for mandamus relief premature.
Litigation Takeaway
"To successfully protect trade secrets or proprietary business information in discovery, you must do more than simply object; you must provide a detailed privilege log and formally request an in-camera inspection. Failing to provide the trial court with the specific documents for review waives your ability to seek mandamus relief, as the appellate court cannot find an abuse of discretion without a record of the specific evidence at issue."
Wilson v. State
COA03
In *Wilson v. State*, a defendant attempted to challenge a decades-old murder conviction by filing a civil "Petition for Declaratory Judgment," claiming the state breached his plea agreement. The Third Court of Appeals looked past the civil labels and analyzed the substance of the pleading, determining it was actually a collateral attack on a final judgment. The court held that because Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive remedy for post-conviction relief, the defendant could not use the Declaratory Judgment Act to bypass these requirements. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"The substance of a legal filing matters more than its title. Parties cannot use a "Declaratory Judgment" action to end-run the strict requirements for challenging a final order. If the relief sought is to void or alter a final decree, you must follow the specific statutory procedures (like a Bill of Review or an enforcement action) rather than seeking a new civil judgment."
In re Mattr US Inc.
COA11
The Eleventh Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief, affirming a trial court's refusal to enforce a forum-selection clause and its denial of jurisdictional discovery. The case involved a Canadian entity attempting to move a dispute to Alberta based on unsigned 'Order Acknowledgments.' The court reasoned that because the documents specifically required a signature as the method of acceptance, the lack of a signature meant no agreement was formed. Furthermore, the court held that internal financial authorizations (AFEs) were not discoverable because contract formation depends on objective manifestations of intent shared between parties, not private internal budgeting documents.
Litigation Takeaway
"An unsigned contract cannot typically enforce a forum-selection clause if the document itself specifies a signature is required for acceptance. Additionally, internal financial documents and 'budgeting' data are generally shielded from discovery in contract disputes because they do not constitute objective evidence of what the parties communicated to one another."
Alazzawi v. Algharrawi
COA08
In Alazzawi v. Algharrawi, a husband appealed a divorce decree and protective order, only to discover that the court reporter's stenographic files were corrupted and the Zoom recording of the trial failed to capture the audible English translations of his wife’s Arabic testimony. The Eighth Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(f), which requires a new trial if a significant portion of the record is lost through no fault of the appellant and is necessary to the appeal. Because the missing testimony was the primary evidence for the trial court’s judgment and the parties could not agree on a replacement translation, the court held that a mandatory new trial was required, reversing the original judgment and remanding the cause.
Litigation Takeaway
"Technical failures during remote hearings—especially those involving foreign language interpreters—can be fatal to a judgment; if the official English translation is not clearly recorded and the parties cannot agree on a reconstruction, a complete "do-over" of the trial is mandatory."
D. F. and W. C. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
COA03
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services sought to terminate the parental rights of a mother, who suffered from chronic methamphetamine relapse and homelessness, and a father, who was serving a life sentence in federal prison for violent racketeering and attempted murder. The trial court ordered termination, which both parents appealed. The Third Court of Appeals analyzed the mother’s 'course of conduct' under Texas Family Code Section 161.001, finding that her history of drug use and instability created an endangering environment. For the father, the court determined that his voluntary criminal acts leading to life imprisonment effectively precluded him from providing stability. Applying the Holley factors, the court held that termination was in the children’s best interest due to the parents' inability to provide for the children's emotional and physical needs compared to the stability of their current placement.
Litigation Takeaway
"Stability is the central pillar of a 'best interest' analysis; a parent’s historical 'course of conduct'—such as repeated drug relapse or long-term incarceration for violent crimes—can satisfy endangerment findings even in the absence of a single specific injury to the child. Practitioners should utilize therapeutic testimony to demonstrate the lack of a parental bond and the child's need for permanence to overcome defenses from incarcerated or addicted parents."
Guardiola v. Rodriguez
COA05
In Guardiola v. Rodriguez, a resident sought to enjoin an eviction proceeding pending the resolution of a separate title dispute. The trial court denied the request for a permanent injunction following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the resident failed to provide the reporter’s record (the official transcript) of that hearing. The Dallas Court of Appeals analyzed the 'presumption of regularity,' which requires appellate courts to assume that any evidence presented at a hearing supported the trial court's judgment if a transcript is not provided. Because there was no record to review for an abuse of discretion, the court affirmed the trial court’s ruling and noted that the underlying title dispute had already been resolved, making the injunction request moot.
Litigation Takeaway
"An appeal of an evidentiary ruling is 'dead on arrival' without a reporter’s record. If you are seeking to stay an eviction or property sale, you must ensure a court reporter transcribes the hearing and that you timely request the record for appeal; otherwise, the appellate court will legally presume the trial judge made the right decision."
Obaro v. North Woodland Hills Village Cmty. Ass’n
COA01
A homeowner sought to vacate a default judgment, arguing that service of process on his designated agent—appointed via a recorded Statutory Durable Power of Attorney (SDPOA)—was invalid because the agent affirmatively rejected the citation. The court analyzed Texas Estates Code §§ 751.031(a) and 752.110(5), which grant agents with authority over 'claims and litigation' the specific power to accept service of process. The court held that this statutory authority is a vested legal power that third parties and the courts are entitled to rely upon; consequently, an agent cannot unilaterally waive or reject service to defeat personal jurisdiction over the principal. The default judgment was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"When dealing with elusive or incapacitated parties, check county records for a Statutory Durable Power of Attorney. If the document grants authority over 'claims and litigation,' you can effectuate valid service on the agent even if they attempt to refuse the papers, provided you allege the agency in your pleadings and attach a copy of the SDPOA."
Elborno v. State
COA14
In Elborno v. State, a defendant challenged his ten-year sentence because the trial court failed to offer him the right of allocution—the opportunity to personally plead for mercy or identify legal bars to sentencing. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed both the common law right to mitigation and the statutory requirements under Article 42.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that the common law right to allocution is forfeited if a defendant fails to object at the time of sentencing. Additionally, the court ruled that while the trial court is statutorily required to ask if there is any reason sentence should not be pronounced, the failure to do so is harmless error unless the defendant can show that a specific legal bar (pardon, incompetency, or mistaken identity) actually applied.
Litigation Takeaway
"In quasi-criminal family law enforcement proceedings, the right to speak in mitigation before being sentenced to jail is a 'use it or lose it' right; counsel must object immediately if a judge moves to pronounce confinement without providing an opportunity for allocution, or the issue is waived for appeal."
City of Houston v. Ezzeddine
COA14
In City of Houston v. Ezzeddine, the 14th Court of Appeals addressed whether conclusory labels such as "inadequate" or "misleading" are sufficient to survive a Rule 91a motion to dismiss. The case involved a fatal collision where the plaintiffs alleged that temporary traffic signage was insufficient but failed to provide specific factual details regarding the signs' appearance or placement. When challenged, the plaintiffs argued they could not provide more detail because discovery had not yet opened. The court rejected this "discovery trap" defense, clarifying that Rule 91a is a gatekeeping mechanism designed to dispose of meritless claims before discovery costs are incurred. The court held that because the plaintiffs provided only legal conclusions and descriptors rather than essential factual allegations, the claims had no basis in law and must be dismissed with prejudice.
Litigation Takeaway
"A plaintiff cannot avoid a Rule 91a dismissal by claiming they need discovery to uncover the facts necessary to support their claim. To survive a motion to dismiss in Texas, a petition must contain specific factual predicates—the 'who, what, where, and when'—rather than mere legal labels or adjectives. In family law, this is a powerful tool to shut down vague allegations of fraud or waste before expensive forensic accounting or depositions begin."