Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1262 opinions found
Burns Surveying LLC v. Robert H. Burns and Jacob G. Pleasant
COA06
In this professional liability dispute, the plaintiffs sued a registered land surveyor for negligence but failed to attach the mandatory Chapter 150 certificate of merit to their original petition. After the trial court dismissed the claims without prejudice, the plaintiffs attempted to cure the defect by filing an amended petition with the required certificate in the same cause number. The Sixth Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 150.002 and Texas Supreme Court precedent, concluding that the 'first-filed' requirement applies to the very first petition asserting the claim in a specific case. The court held that a dismissal without prejudice requires the claimant to initiate an entirely new lawsuit to satisfy the contemporaneous filing requirement, and an amended petition cannot cure the initial failure to file.
Litigation Takeaway
"When suing a licensed professional like a surveyor, the certificate of merit must be attached to the very first petition filed. If the case is dismissed without prejudice for failing to do so, you cannot fix the error by amending the existing lawsuit; you must file a brand-new suit with a new cause number to satisfy the 'first-filed' rule."
Crayton v. State
COA03
After being convicted of intoxication manslaughter, John Edgar Crayton, Jr. was assessed court costs without the trial court conducting the mandatory 'ability-to-pay' inquiry required by Article 42.15(a-1) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Crayton appealed, arguing the omission was reversible error. The Third Court of Appeals analyzed the statutory scheme alongside recent precedent, determining that the inquiry is a procedural right rather than a fundamental one. The court held that because Crayton failed to object to the omission during sentencing when given the opportunity, he forfeited the error on appeal. Furthermore, the court held the error was not reversible because the law provides a post-judgment mechanism for defendants to seek relief due to financial hardship at any time.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never rely on a trial court to perform a 'mandatory' statutory inquiry regarding a client's ability to pay fees or costs; counsel must proactively object to any omission on the record or risk waiving the issue for appeal. In the event of a waiver, practitioners should utilize post-judgment hardship statutes to seek relief rather than pursuing a likely-to-fail appeal."
In re Quintilya Thomas
COA08
In an original proceeding arising from family-law temporary orders, the relator asked the El Paso Court of Appeals for an emergency stay of “default temporary orders” but filed only a Rule 52.10 motion and no petition for writ of mandamus. The court treated the defect as jurisdictional: under Tex. R. App. P. 52.1 an original proceeding is commenced only by filing a mandamus petition, and Rule 52.10 temporary relief is merely ancillary and is available only after a petition invokes the court’s original jurisdiction. Because no petition was on file, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to grant any temporary relief or stay and dismissed the motion for want of jurisdiction, without prejudice to refiling after a mandamus petition is filed.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you need an emergency stay from a court of appeals in a family case, you cannot file a standalone “emergency stay pending mandamus” motion. File the mandamus petition first (or simultaneously) to invoke original jurisdiction; only then can Rule 52.10 temporary relief be considered—otherwise the motion will be dismissed and valuable time will be lost while temporary orders remain enforceable."
Raggio-2204 Jesse Owens, LLC v. Morgan
COA03
After a trial court's plenary jurisdiction had expired, it entered a sanctions judgment and subsequent turnover orders authorizing a receiver to seize and sell property belonging to Stacey Hammer's LLC. After the Austin Court of Appeals declared these orders void, Hammer and the LLC sued the judgment creditor, his attorney, and the receiver for damages related to the lost property. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b regarding the limits of plenary power and the doctrine of derived judicial immunity. The court held that because the underlying orders were void ab initio, the judgment creditor and the receiver could not claim immunity and were liable for restitution of the value of the property sold under the void authority.
Litigation Takeaway
"A court order signed after plenary power has expired is a legal nullity; practitioners and receivers who move property or distribute funds under a void order are not protected by judicial immunity and are subject to claims for restitution and conversion."
Angel Serna v. The State of Texas
COA07
In an aggravated-assault “family member” prosecution, the defense sought to impeach the complainant with alleged methamphetamine use to support the defendant’s fear/state-of-mind theory. The trial court excluded the drug-use impeachment evidence. On appeal, the defendant reframed the exclusion as violating the constitutional right to confrontation and to present a complete defense, but the court of appeals treated the issue as one of preservation: trial counsel argued only relevance/state of mind at trial and did not clearly invoke confrontation/due-process/complete-defense grounds or obtain a ruling on those constitutional theories as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1. The court therefore held the constitutional complaint was waived and did not reach the merits. The court also rejected an ineffective-assistance claim at punishment based on failure to call additional mitigation witnesses because the record did not overcome the presumption of reasonable trial strategy and the proposed testimony was largely cumulative, with no showing of a reasonable probability of a different punishment outcome.
Litigation Takeaway
"Preservation is theory-specific: if excluded evidence (like drug use) is critical to impeach credibility or support a “complete defense,” you must expressly state the constitutional grounds and secure a ruling—relevance/state-of-mind arguments won’t preserve confrontation/due-process complaints for appeal. Also, “we should have called more witnesses” claims are difficult to win on appeal without a developed record showing counsel’s reasons were unreasonable and the omitted evidence likely would have changed the result."
David Aston v. James Whittington and Tara Whittington
COA05
In a contract dispute that went to trial in Hunt County, the trial court entered a post‑answer default judgment after defendant David Aston and his counsel failed to appear for the reset trial setting. Aston timely moved for new trial supported by affidavit evidence that he did not know of the trial date and relied on counsel to communicate settings; plaintiffs countered with proof that Aston’s counsel received and opened the court’s electronic notice and argued counsel’s inaction should be imputed to Aston. The Dallas Court of Appeals treated the matter as a straightforward Craddock analysis for post‑answer default judgments and held the trial court abused its discretion by denying a new trial: (1) the failure to appear was shown to be the result of mistake/accident rather than intentional conduct or conscious indifference, and the court declined to import the summary‑judgment “imputation” framework into the Craddock default context; (2) Aston “set up” meritorious defenses by pleading legally cognizable defenses and offering prima facie support, which does not require proving the case at the new‑trial stage; and (3) once Aston alleged no delay or injury, plaintiffs failed to show concrete retrial prejudice beyond the inconvenience of trying the case. The court reversed the post‑answer default judgment and remanded for a merits trial.
Litigation Takeaway
"Post‑answer defaults are disfavored in Texas, and a party who misses trial because of notice breakdowns or calendar‑conflict missteps can often win a new trial under Craddock—especially when the client swears they lacked actual knowledge of the setting, promptly sought relief, and sets up a real defense. On the flip side, to keep a default, the nonmovant must bring evidence of actual retrial prejudice (lost witnesses/evidence, time‑sensitive issues), not just “they opened the e‑notice” or “a new trial is inconvenient.”"
Landry v. Landry
SCOTX
In Landry v. Landry, the Texas Supreme Court addressed whether a trial court could properly characterize investment accounts as separate property when an expert's tracing analysis contained a minor four-month gap in personal review. The court of appeals had reversed the trial court's finding, speculating that the missing months could have changed the character of the funds. However, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, holding that the expert’s testimony—which established a consistent 16-year pattern of account activity—provided legally sufficient evidence under the clear and convincing standard. The Court emphasized that when records are in the trial record and expert testimony remains unrebutted, minor gaps in an expert's review do not invalidate the trial court's findings.
Litigation Takeaway
"When defending or asserting a separate property claim, a consistent long-term pattern established by an expert is a powerful tool that can overcome minor gaps in documentation. To successfully challenge such a claim, a party cannot rely solely on cross-examination or pointing out technical omissions; they must typically provide their own rebuttal expert to prove that those gaps are material to the account's characterization."
Fanous v. Allstate Insurance
COA02
In Fanous v. Allstate Insurance, the appellant filed a notice of appeal 21 days after the mandatory 90-day deadline triggered by a motion for new trial. The appellant argued the delay was a strategic decision to avoid 'alienating' the trial judge during a pending hearing. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and 26.3, concluding that appellate deadlines are strictly jurisdictional. The court held that subjective tactical concerns or the desire to maintain a judge's favor do not constitute a reasonable explanation for missing filing windows, and subsequently dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never miss a jurisdictional appellate deadline for the sake of 'trial court optics'; the appellate clock does not pause for pending motions or a lawyer's fear of alienating the trial judge."
In the Interest of K.A.E.E. and K.M.-A.E., Children
COA10
The Department of Family and Protective Services sought to terminate parental rights following incidents of domestic violence and substance abuse. Despite being offered relocation assistance and shelter services, the mother chose to return to an abusive environment with the father and violated a court-ordered safety plan. The Tenth Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), emphasizing that endangerment occurs when a parent prioritizes an abusive relationship over a stable environment, even without evidence of actual injury to the child. The court held that the parents' continued association and rejection of safety resources constituted clear and convincing evidence to support termination and the best-interest finding.
Litigation Takeaway
"In termination proceedings, a parent's affirmative decision to reject domestic violence resources and return to an abuser in violation of a safety plan is potent evidence of endangering conduct, as 'endangerment' does not require a child to suffer actual physical injury."
Trevino v. State
COA13
In Trevino v. State, a defendant facing intoxication manslaughter charges attempted to prevent the prosecution from presenting graphic evidence—such as autopsy photos and scene footage—by offering to 'stipulate' (legally admit) to his intoxication and the resulting fatalities. He argued that because he conceded these facts, the evidence was unnecessarily prejudicial under Texas Rule of Evidence 403. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that while stipulations are required for 'prior conviction' elements, they do not give a party the power to strip the opponent of the right to tell the full narrative of the current incident. The court concluded that the State was entitled to present the 'full evidentiary force' of the case to provide context and support its theories of the crime.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family law disputes involving domestic violence or substance abuse, an opposing party cannot 'stipulate away' your right to show the court the full story. Admitting that an incident happened does not automatically block you from using high-impact evidence like 9-1-1 calls, photos, or police videos to show the court the true severity of the situation."