Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1447 opinions found
Pettigrew v. State
COA10
In Pettigrew v. State, the Waco Court of Appeals upheld admission of a roughly twenty-year-old extraneous child-sex-abuse allegation under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.37. The defendant argued the statute was unconstitutional as applied because the prior allegation was stale, uncorroborated, never reported to police, and previously deemed “unsubstantiated” by CPS. The court rejected that argument, emphasizing that the trial court followed the statute’s safeguards by holding the required hearing, finding a reasonable juror could believe the extraneous act beyond a reasonable doubt, and conducting Rule 403 balancing. On the evidentiary issue, the court held the prior allegation was highly probative because it closely resembled the charged conduct, and the State had significant need for the evidence in a credibility-driven case. The court therefore held the statute was not unconstitutional as applied and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony.
Litigation Takeaway
"Old, uncorroborated, or previously “unsubstantiated” sexual-abuse allegations may still carry significant evidentiary weight when they closely resemble current accusations and credibility is central. For family-law litigants, that means you cannot rely on remoteness or an agency’s non-substantiation label alone; you must either build a strong similarity-and-risk argument or attack the allegation’s reliability, dissimilarity, and prejudicial effect in a focused way."
In re Zermeno
COA07
In In re Zermeno, the Amarillo Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus after a trial court’s temporary orders named Father a joint managing conservator despite uncontroverted evidence that he had committed family violence against Mother within two years before the divorce was filed. The court focused on Texas Family Code section 153.004(b), explaining that the statute is not just a factor in the best-interest analysis; it prohibits appointment of joint managing conservators when credible evidence shows a history or pattern of physical abuse by one parent against the other. Because Father admitted multiple assaults, including one shortly before separation, and Mother and the parties’ adult children corroborated the violence, the trial court misapplied the law to essentially undisputed facts. The appellate court held that mandamus was the proper remedy for the unlawful temporary order and directed the trial court to vacate it.
Litigation Takeaway
"When credible evidence establishes a recent history or pattern of family violence, a Texas trial court cannot treat joint managing conservatorship as a compromise option. Family Code section 153.004(b) creates a hard statutory limit on the court’s discretion, and mandamus is available to correct temporary orders that ignore that limit."
In the Interest of M.L.J.
COA14
In this termination appeal, a Fourteenth Court dissent concluded that a parent’s unsupported claim of “Indian heritage” did not trigger ICWA. The dissent focused on ICWA’s statutory definition of an “Indian child,” emphasizing that the record contained no evidence the child was a tribal member, eligible for membership, or the biological child of a tribal member. Because neither parent nor the child was registered with a tribe, no tribe-specific evidence was offered, and no documentation was produced despite repeated opportunities, the dissent reasoned the trial court had no “reason to know” ICWA applied under 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a). The dissent also criticized reliance on 25 C.F.R. § 23.107 to impose a broader inquiry duty based on mere suspicion, and would have held that ancestry alone is insufficient to trigger ICWA’s heightened protections.
Litigation Takeaway
"If ICWA is in play, vague statements about Native or Indian heritage are not enough. Family-law litigators should build a tribe-specific record on membership, eligibility, and parental tribal status early, because unsupported ancestry claims can create appellate risk, while a well-developed record can support the argument that ICWA was never triggered."
Lind v. M3 Fort Worth Developer, LLC and The YoungESTone, LLC
COA10
In Lind v. M3 Fort Worth Developer, LLC, the Waco Court of Appeals held that a defendant who was properly served with the original petition but never answered did not have to be re-served with a later amended petition unless the amendment sought a more onerous judgment. Here, the amended petition made only corrective, non-substantive changes—such as fixing a name, counsel information, and service allegations—and did not change the claims, facts, or relief sought against Lind. Applying Texas default-judgment law and the restricted-appeal standard, the court concluded no service error appeared on the face of the record. The court also upheld the damages award, recognizing that default does not admit unliquidated damages or causation, but finding no reversible error in the proof presented.
Litigation Takeaway
"In default cases, the key question is not whether an amended petition became the live pleading, but whether it materially increased the responding party’s exposure. In family-law cases, re-service may be unnecessary for cleanup amendments, but if an amendment adds harsher conservatorship terms, broader property relief, fees, injunctions, or expanded enforcement remedies, failing to re-serve can jeopardize the default."
In the Matter of D.A.
COA02
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed a juvenile court’s order modifying disposition and committing D.A. to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department after D.A. repeatedly violated probation, absconded for months, and continued using marijuana. On appeal, D.A. argued the trial court effectively refused to consider the full range of available dispositions because a requested psychological evaluation had been denied. The appellate court rejected that argument, holding the due-process version of the complaint was not preserved and that the record did not show the judge had prejudged the outcome or refused to consider lesser options. The court emphasized that a psychological evaluation is not a statutory prerequisite to a non-TJJD placement, the judge questioned D.A. about continued probation, and the trial court made the required statutory findings under the Family Code. Because substantive and probative evidence supported those findings, the commitment order was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you want to argue on appeal that a trial court failed to consider lesser alternatives, you need a clear record showing it. Preservation, statutory findings, and concrete evidence of failed supervision matter more than rhetoric. If a denied evaluation or assessment is central to your theory, make the legal basis and resulting prejudice explicit in the trial court or the complaint will likely go nowhere on appeal."
In re Megan Leigh Burch
COA14
In this original proceeding arising from a Brazoria County SAPCR, Megan Leigh Burch sought mandamus relief directing the trial court to vacate an order denying her motion to exclude an expert witness and to narrow a previously ordered child custody evaluation. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals applied the usual mandamus framework, requiring a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by appeal, and emphasized that the relator bears the burden to provide a sufficient record and legal showing. Because Burch did not establish that the trial court’s expert-related and custody-evaluation rulings met that demanding standard, the court denied mandamus relief in full.
Litigation Takeaway
"Mandamus is usually a poor vehicle for challenging expert rulings or the scope of a child custody evaluation in a Texas custody case unless you can build a tight record showing both a clear legal error and harm that ordinary appeal cannot fix. Preserve specific objections, propose narrower protections, and develop evidence of irreparable harm in the trial court rather than relying on generalized complaints about bias, unreliability, or overbreadth."
Salinas v. State
COA09
In Salinas v. State, the Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed a family-violence strangulation conviction after rejecting the defendant’s challenge to an unredacted 911 statement that he 'took off with a gun.' The court treated the gun reference as part of the immediate context of the reported assault, explaining the caller’s urgency and the circumstances facing dispatch and responding officers, and held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the statement’s probative contextual value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403. The court also refused to consider a separate evidentiary complaint raised later in an unauthorized supplemental merits brief, holding that distinct appellate issues must be presented in the opening brief or properly added by amendment with leave under Rule 38.7.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-violence-related litigation, courts will often admit damaging details from 911 calls and other emergency evidence when those details help explain the event’s context, fear level, and response. If you want exclusion, a generic prejudice objection is usually not enough—you must show the detail is severable, minimally probative, cumulative, or being used for improper character leverage. And on appeal, each separate evidentiary complaint must be raised in the opening brief."
In re Marriage of Bueso and Cruz
COA12
The Twelfth Court of Appeals dismissed this family-law appeal because the appellate record contained no signed final judgment and no statutorily appealable interlocutory order. Although the pro se appellant claimed a March 16, 2026 order was final, the district clerk reported that the matter was still under advisement and that no order had been filed. The only document the appellant supplied was an unsigned, un-file-marked copy, which could not establish appellate jurisdiction. Applying Texas appellate-jurisdiction principles, including the rule that appeals generally lie only from signed final judgments or authorized interlocutory orders, the court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a).
Litigation Takeaway
"Before filing a family-law appeal, confirm that a judge has actually signed the order and that it has been filed with the clerk. Oral rulings, draft orders, docket notes, and unsigned copies do not trigger appellate jurisdiction or deadlines, and filing too early can lead to dismissal."
Peele v. State
COA04
In *Peele v. State*, the San Antonio Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction for indecency with a child and, in doing so, offered a useful evidence lesson for family-law cases built around a child’s disclosure. The key dispute was whether the child’s mother could repeat the child’s accusation even though the State initially invoked hearsay theories that did not cleanly fit the record and conceded the mother was not the Article 38.072 outcry witness. The court still affirmed because the complainant herself testified directly to the touching, the defense’s hearsay complaint did not produce reversible harm, and the record otherwise supported the verdict. The opinion underscores that appellate courts focus not just on whether “outcry” procedures were followed, but on specificity of objections, alternative admissibility theories, preservation, and whether any evidentiary error likely affected the outcome.
Litigation Takeaway
"In child-disclosure cases, hearsay fights are won on precision and preservation, not labels. If you object, force the court to identify the exact basis for admission, raise all applicable grounds, and preserve harm each time the same statement comes in. If you offer the evidence, do not rely on vague “outcry” language—build a specific evidentiary path and corroborate the disclosure so any error is harmless."
In re EOG Resources, Inc.
COA04
In this Texas mandamus proceeding, the Fourth Court of Appeals held that EOG’s disclosure of a redacted legal memorandum and an internal email referencing counsel’s advice did not waive attorney-client privilege as to other withheld title opinions, memoranda, and communications in underlying probate litigation over mineral interests. The court found EOG established a prima facie privilege claim through its privilege log, affidavits, and in camera submission, then rejected waiver because Rule 511 requires disclosure of a significant part of the privileged matter itself—not merely documents on the same subject or evidence that a party received and acted on legal advice. The court also rejected offensive-use waiver because EOG was only defending against claims and was not seeking affirmative relief. Because compelled disclosure of privileged material has no adequate appellate remedy, the court conditionally granted mandamus and ordered the trial court to vacate its production order.
Litigation Takeaway
"A partial disclosure does not open the whole lawyer file. In Texas family litigation, opposing counsel cannot prove waiver just by pointing to a redacted memo, an email mentioning legal advice, or testimony that a client acted after consulting counsel; they must show the disclosure revealed a significant part of the withheld communication itself. And offensive-use waiver remains narrow when your client is asserting defenses rather than affirmative claims."