Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1262 opinions found
Julio Chapa v. The State of Texas
COA13
In Chapa v. State, a defendant appealed his convictions for indecency with a child, asserting that the evidence was legally insufficient because it relied on inconsistent child testimonies and lacked physical medical findings. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, ruling that the jury has the sole authority to weigh witness credibility and resolve conflicts in evidence. The court found that the combination of the children’s in-court testimony, their immediate 'outcry' disclosures to their adoptive mother, and consistent patient histories recorded in SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) records provided a sufficient basis for the jury's verdict.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family law cases involving abuse allegations—such as custody disputes or protective orders—physical evidence is not a prerequisite for a finding of abuse; consistent child disclosures coupled with corroborating medical narratives can withstand credibility attacks and support significant restrictions on parental rights."
City of Houston v. Castillo
COA14
After a motor-vehicle collision involving a City of Houston employee, the plaintiff sued under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). The City filed a Rule 91a motion to dismiss, arguing the plaintiff failed to negate the 'emergency' exception to the waiver of immunity and that the plaintiff judicially admitted the officer's immunity. While the City's interlocutory appeal was pending, the trial court issued a discovery order. The Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff is not required to preemptively negate TTCA exceptions unless their own pleadings plausibly implicate those exceptions. Crucially, the court also determined that a Rule 91a motion challenging immunity is a jurisdictional challenge that triggers an automatic statutory stay of all trial court proceedings under Section 51.014(b). The court affirmed the denial of the dismissal but granted mandamus relief to vacate the discovery order entered during the stay.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a governmental unit appeals the denial of a Rule 91a motion based on immunity, it triggers an automatic stay of all trial court proceedings under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(b). Any orders signed during this stay, such as discovery or scheduling orders, are subject to vacatur via mandamus. Additionally, when suing a governmental entity, avoid pleading facts that suggest an emergency or 911 response unless you are prepared to affirmatively negate those specific immunity exceptions in your petition."
In the Interest of I.H. and K.H., Children
COA13
In this Texas appellate case, an appellant (J.W.) filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal and requested that the court tax costs against the party who incurred them. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(d), which establishes that, absent an agreement between the parties, the court must tax costs against the appellant. Because J.W. did not provide evidence of an agreement with the appellee regarding costs, the court denied the request to deviate from the default rule. However, because J.W. had filed a valid Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs under Rule 20.1, the court held that no costs would actually be assessed. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was shielded from costs due to their indigent status.
Litigation Takeaway
"When seeking a voluntary dismissal of an appeal, an appellant cannot unilaterally decide how court costs are distributed; without a formal agreement from the other party, the appellant is responsible for costs by default. However, maintaining a current Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs is a critical protection for indigent clients, as it overrides the default taxation rule and prevents the assessment of appellate fees."
City of Houston v. Castillo
COA14
In City of Houston v. Castillo, a plaintiff sued the City following a motor vehicle collision, prompting the City to file a Rule 91a motion to dismiss based on governmental immunity. The City argued the plaintiff failed to affirmatively negate statutory exceptions for emergency responses. When the trial court denied the motion, the City filed an interlocutory appeal and subsequently sought mandamus relief after the trial court issued discovery orders during the appeal's pendency. The court of appeals held that a Rule 91a motion asserting immunity is a jurisdictional challenge that triggers the mandatory automatic stay of all trial proceedings under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(b). While the court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss—finding the plaintiff was not required to negate exceptions not implicated by the petition—it granted mandamus relief to vacate the discovery orders entered in violation of the statutory stay.
Litigation Takeaway
"An immunity-based Rule 91a motion serves as a powerful jurisdictional "pause button." If a governmental entity appeals the denial of such a motion, Section 51.014(b) triggers an automatic stay that strips the trial court of the power to act; any discovery or enforcement orders entered during this time are vulnerable to being vacated via mandamus."
Castillo v. Martinez
COA08
In Castillo v. Martinez, the Appellants attempted to appeal a trial court's dismissal order several months after the deadline, arguing that the underlying judgment was 'void' and that a subsequent order denying their motion to vacate restarted the appellate clock. The El Paso Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, which dictates strict timelines for filing a notice of appeal. The court held that even if a judgment is legally defective or void, it still becomes final for purposes of appeal and triggers the mandatory 30- or 90-day filing window. Because the Appellants failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the original judgment, the court dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, ruling that a party cannot circumvent appellate deadlines by simply labeling a judgment void.
Litigation Takeaway
"A judgment's alleged 'voidness' does not stop the appellate clock; practitioners must file their notice of appeal within the standard 30- or 90-day window following the final decree, as a later order denying a motion to vacate will not restart the timetable for a direct appeal."
In re CHRISTUS Health Southeast Texas
COA09
In this mandamus proceeding, a hospital (CHRISTUS) attempted to intervene in a lawsuit involving a non-compete dispute between an anesthesia group and its former employees, arguing that the resulting injunction caused the hospital significant financial and operational hardship. The Court of Appeals analyzed the 'justiciable interest' test under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which requires that an intervenor must be able to maintain the action (or a part of it) in their own name as a sole plaintiff. The court held that because CHRISTUS was not a party to the employment contracts, its collateral economic interest did not grant it standing to intervene. The trial court's decision to strike the intervention was upheld, affirming that mere economic impact is insufficient to force one's way into someone else's litigation.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family law litigation, third parties like business partners or grandparents cannot intervene simply because a court's order will cost them money or cause inconvenience; they must demonstrate a specific legal right that would allow them to sue for that same relief independently."
JLV Asset Management, Inc. v. The Chicken Place, Inc.
COA07
In a dispute over a promissory note, the parties disagreed on whether a payment made on the one-year anniversary of the contract's effective date satisfied a requirement to pay 'within one year.' The court applied the 'anniversary rule,' which dictates that unless a contract specifies a different count (like 365 days), 'one year' includes the calendar anniversary of the start date. Although the trial court erred by allowing a jury to interpret the unambiguous contract, the appellate court held the error was harmless because the jury’s conclusion aligned with the correct legal construction. The court ultimately held that the anniversary-date payment was timely as a matter of law.
Litigation Takeaway
"Under the Texas 'anniversary rule,' an obligation to perform 'within one year' includes the calendar anniversary of the effective date. To avoid deadline disputes in Mediated Settlement Agreements or Divorce Decrees, practitioners should define 'year' specifically or, preferably, use certain dates and times for performance rather than relative windows."
In the Interest of B.C., a Child
COA02
A Mother sought to modify a residency restriction to move her child, who has severe autism and is nonverbal, from Texas to Florida to access specialized therapeutic and educational resources. The Father opposed the move and sought to further restrict the residency area. The trial court expanded the residency restriction to the continental United States, ordering the Mother to reimburse certain travel costs for the Father. The appellate court analyzed the case under the Lenz v. Lenz factors, noting that the child's specific medical needs, the Father's own relocation outside the restricted area, and his history of inconsistent visitation supported the move. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, as the expansion was in the child's best interest.
Litigation Takeaway
"In relocation cases involving special needs children, Texas courts may prioritize "resource disparity" over geographical proximity; practitioners should be aware that a non-custodial parent's own relocation can significantly weaken their ability to enforce or maintain local residency restrictions."
Walther v. Walther
COA02
In Walther v. Walther, the Second Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s divorce decree that featured a "just and right" property division and permanent injunctions. The case involved significant marital misconduct, including the wife's unauthorized spending of $200,000 in community funds on luxury items and cosmetic surgery, as well as a history of family violence involving terroristic threats. The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the sale of the marital residence to compensate the husband for the wife's financial waste or by issuing permanent injunctions to ensure the husband's safety. Additionally, the court upheld the exclusion of an unsigned separation agreement, noting it failed to meet the evidentiary standards for authentication.
Litigation Takeaway
"Texas trial courts possess broad authority to order the sale of a marital home and issue permanent protective injunctions when there is documented evidence of financial waste, fraud, and family violence. Furthermore, practitioners and parties should be cautioned that unsigned settlement agreements are generally inadmissible without extrinsic evidence proving they represent a final, binding contract."
In re A.Y.
COA01
The Texas First Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's decree terminating a mother’s parental rights due to child endangerment and failure to complete a court-ordered service plan. The case arose after the mother brought her infant to a residence where a violent shooting occurred and tested positive for methamphetamines during two separate pregnancies. The court analyzed whether her conduct and her failure to follow the service plan—which she blamed on medical bed rest—met the "clear and convincing" evidence standard. The court held that the mother’s persistent drug use and exposure of the child to dangerous environments provided sufficient grounds for termination, concluding that the child's best interests were served by the stability of a drug-free foster home.
Litigation Takeaway
"A parent’s pattern of behavior, particularly ongoing drug use and associating with violent individuals, creates a high hurdle that medical or administrative excuses for non-compliance with a service plan cannot easily overcome. Courts prioritize a child’s immediate need for safety and stability over a parent's claims of 'substantial compliance' or physical limitations."