Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1262 opinions found
Raven Robert Rodriguez v. State
COA11
Raven Robert Rodriguez was convicted of capital murder following the stabbing death of his long-term partner. On appeal, Rodriguez argued that the trial court erred by failing to limit the definitions of 'intentionally' and 'knowingly' in the jury charge and by admitting evidence of his prior acts of domestic violence against the victim. The Eleventh Court of Appeals held that while the jury charge was technically erroneous, it did not result in egregious harm given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including the defendant's admission and surveillance footage. Crucially, the court upheld the admission of prior domestic violence incidents, finding them relevant to establishing the nature of the relationship and the defendant's pattern of conduct.
Litigation Takeaway
"To successfully prove a pattern of domestic violence in family law cases, practitioners should prioritize objective corroboration—such as surveillance video, medical records, and photos—to supplement testimony. When prior acts of violence against the same partner are well-documented, they are highly admissible to establish context and risk, and appellate courts are unlikely to reverse such findings even if technical instructional errors occur at trial."
In re Kirt McGhee
COA09
In a dispute over attorney’s fees, a trial court ordered a party to produce unredacted billing invoices and supplemental expert disclosures, despite a prior appellate ruling that the original disclosures were sufficient. The Ninth Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief, holding that the 'law of the case' doctrine prevented the trial court from revisiting the adequacy of disclosures already validated on appeal. The court further clarified that seeking attorney's fees does not result in an automatic waiver of attorney-client privilege for billing descriptions and that a party cannot be compelled to produce records that are no longer in their possession or control.
Litigation Takeaway
"Requesting attorney’s fees does not waive your right to redact privileged strategy and communications from your billing records; additionally, once an appellate court confirms your expert disclosures are adequate, the trial court cannot force you to supplement them with more detail on remand."
Absolute Oil + Gas, LLC v. Chord Energy Corp.
COA01
In Absolute Oil + Gas, LLC v. Chord Energy Corp., the trial court severed dismissed tort and unjust enrichment claims from an ongoing contract dispute to create a final, appealable judgment. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the severance under the three-prong Guaranty Federal test, focusing on whether the claims were 'factually interwoven.' The court found that because all claims stemmed from the same alleged collusive scheme to inflate costs and shared identical parties and evidence, severance risked inconsistent rulings—particularly regarding whether an express contract barred quasi-contractual recovery. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion, reversing the severance order because the claims were inextricably linked by shared operative facts.
Litigation Takeaway
"Prevent 'divide and conquer' tactics in complex property litigation by using the Interwoven Claims Doctrine to block the severance of tort claims (like fraud on the community) from the main property division, ensuring a single, cohesive 'just and right' adjudication."
Ex Parte Giambi Boyd
COA01
In Ex Parte Boyd, a defendant was held for 560 days on a $1.2 million bond for murder and aggravated assault charges. Despite the severity of the crimes, the State admitted it was not ready for trial because forensic firearms testing was still pending. The First Court of Appeals analyzed Article 17.151 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that a felony defendant must be released on a personal bond or have their bail reduced to an affordable amount if the State is not ready for trial within 90 days of detention. The court held that this statute is mandatory and does not permit a "safety exception" for dangerous offenses. Consequently, because the defendant proved he could only afford a $5,000 bond, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and ordered the bail reduction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not rely on the criminal justice system to keep a violent or dangerous party incarcerated during a family law case; if the State isn't ready for trial within 90 days, the party may be released on a nominal bond regardless of the charges. Family law practitioners must proactively secure civil Protective Orders and restrictive temporary orders to ensure the safety of their clients and children."
In the Interest of A.R. and C.R., Children
COA10
In this parental termination case, a mother’s court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal was frivolous, and simultaneously moved to withdraw from the case. The Tenth Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record and agreed that there were no arguable grounds for reversal, affirming the termination decree. However, the court denied the attorney’s motion to withdraw. Relying on the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in In re P.M., the court concluded that a parent’s statutory right to counsel persists through the exhaustion of all appellate remedies, including the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. Therefore, an attorney cannot withdraw simply because the appeal is deemed meritless at the intermediate stage.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas parental termination cases, the right to court-appointed counsel is a "long-tail" obligation; even if an attorney believes an appeal is meritless, they must generally remain on the case until the client has had the opportunity to seek review from the Texas Supreme Court."
Hutcherson v. Hutcherson
COA03
In a divorce involving a high-net-worth couple with a valid premarital agreement (PMA), the trial court awarded the wife a $900,000 money judgment and $5,000 per month in spousal maintenance. This award occurred despite the PMA limiting the community estate to approximately $83,000, with most assets characterized as the husband's separate property. The Third Court of Appeals analyzed the conflict between the trial court's equitable "just and right" division powers and the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (UPAA). The court held that because the PMA was valid, the trial court was strictly bound by its property characterizations. By awarding a judgment nearly eleven times the value of the community estate, the trial court effectively divested the husband of his separate property, which is prohibited under Texas law. The court reversed the money judgment and maintenance award, holding that a luxurious lifestyle during marriage does not allow a court to circumvent the contractual limitations of a PMA.
Litigation Takeaway
"A premarital agreement is a binding ceiling on property division. Trial courts cannot use large money judgments or "lifestyle-based" spousal maintenance to bypass a valid agreement that limits community assets. If the community estate is small due to a premarital contract, the court's award must stay within the value of those limited assets; otherwise, it is an unconstitutional divestiture of separate property."
Boardman v. State
COA13
In a criminal burglary case with significant implications for family law evidence, the defendant challenged the admission of bodycam footage from a subsequent, unrelated traffic stop used to identify him. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals focused on whether the defendant's trial objection under Rule 403 (unfair prejudice) was sufficient to preserve a complaint under Rule 404(b) (extraneous acts). The court held that a Rule 403 objection does not preserve a Rule 404(b) challenge and that the footage was admissible because its high probative value regarding the defendant's identity—linking his clothing and vehicle to the crime scene—was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.
Litigation Takeaway
"To protect your record for appeal, a Rule 403 objection is not a "catch-all"; you must specifically invoke Rule 404(b) if you are challenging the admission of extraneous acts or character evidence, even when the evidence is a "mundane" video like a traffic stop."
In re K.M.R., a Child
COA14
In this parental termination case, a mother appealed the loss of her parental rights after her child tested positive for cocaine at birth. She argued that the trial court violated her due process by denying a request to delay the trial while she was in a behavioral hospital, and that her prenatal drug use did not constitute an endangering 'environment' because the child was removed immediately after birth. The 14th Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, holding that the mother failed to follow mandatory procedures by not including a sworn affidavit with her request for a delay. The court also clarified that under Texas law, the 'environment' of a child includes the womb, meaning drug use during pregnancy is sufficient evidence of endangerment to support termination.
Litigation Takeaway
"Always adhere to the technical requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 251 when seeking a trial delay; failing to include a sworn verification or affidavit can prevent you from challenging the denial on appeal. Furthermore, be aware that Texas courts consider prenatal drug use as creating an endangering environment, effectively neutralizing the defense that a parent never had post-birth custody of the child."
City of Houston v. Pellott
COA14
In City of Houston v. Pellott, a plaintiff sued the city under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) but failed to specifically plead that timely statutory notice was provided to the governmental unit. The City moved for dismissal under Rule 91a, arguing the petition lacked a basis in law because it failed to allege this jurisdictional prerequisite. Although the plaintiff provided evidence in a response suggesting that notice had actually been sent and received, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals focused strictly on the pleadings. The court analyzed the case under the Harris County v. Sykes doctrine, which requires dismissal with prejudice when a party fails to cure a jurisdictional pleading defect after being given multiple opportunities to replead. The court reversed the trial court's denial of the motion and rendered a judgment dismissing the case with prejudice.
Litigation Takeaway
"When suing a governmental entity—whether for incidents involving CPS, school districts, or police during possession exchanges—pleading statutory notice in your petition is a jurisdictional requirement, not a suggestion. You cannot rely on external evidence or 'actual notice' to save a case if your formal pleadings are defective; if you fail to fix the petition after a challenge, the court can dismiss your claim permanently with prejudice."
DePriest v. DePriest
COA14
In this post-decree dispute, a husband sought amended Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) after plan administrators rejected the originals. The wife filed counterclaims for fraud and breach of contract, attempting to relitigate the property division established in the final 2019 decree, which had already been affirmed on appeal. The trial court dismissed the wife's claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that a trial court lacks the authority to substantively alter or "undo" a final property division once plenary power has expired and appellate remedies are exhausted. The court also held that the wife waived her right to 45-day trial notice under Rule 245 by participating in the hearing without objection.
Litigation Takeaway
"A final divorce decree affirmed on appeal is truly final; parties cannot use post-decree enforcement or QDRO proceedings as a vehicle to revive old disputes or launch collateral attacks on the original property division. Furthermore, procedural rights like trial notice are waived if you participate in a hearing without making a timely objection."