Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1262 opinions found
Cisneros v. Leal
COA04
After a minor passenger suffered catastrophic injuries in a car crash caused by a minor driver who had been drinking at several adults' homes, the victim sued the homeowners under Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code § 2.02(c). The trial court granted summary judgment for the homeowners, but the Fourth Court of Appeals reversed. The court analyzed the plain text of the 2005 statutory amendment, concluding that the Texas Legislature specifically created a civil cause of action against non-parent adults (21+) who knowingly provide alcohol to, or allow alcohol to be provided to, minors under 18 on premises they own or lease.
Litigation Takeaway
"Texas law provides a clear statutory path to hold non-parent adults liable for hosting underage drinking; family law practitioners can use this 'social host' liability to argue for restricted possession or supervision requirements when a parent’s household or social circle endangers a child through permissive alcohol use."
Lamar Advantage Outdoor Co., L.P. v. LaCore Enterprises, LLC, et al.
COA05
A billboard lessee (Lamar) sued a property owner and a third-party purchaser for breach of contract and conversion after the owner sold the property without providing a contractually mandated 'desire to sell' notice. This notice was a condition precedent to the lessee's 30-day window to exercise an option for a perpetual easement. The Dallas Court of Appeals analyzed the lease's plain language and determined that because the lessor failed to provide the required notice, the lessee's exercise window never expired. The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment, holding that genuine issues of material fact regarding the breach and the lessee's right to possession precluded judgment as a matter of law.
Litigation Takeaway
"In complex property divisions, practitioners must perform exhaustive due diligence for 'poison pill' clauses like rights of first refusal or purchase options; a failure to provide mandated notice to third-party lessees during a post-divorce sale or transfer can lead to litigation that clouds the title and strips the community asset of its value."
In the Interest of V.R.C.
COA05
In a high-stakes custody dispute, a mother lost all access to her child after revoking a settlement agreement on the morning of her trial. She argued that her due process rights were violated because she expected the trial to be postponed due to the settlement. However, the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that since the postponement was contingent on the settlement she chose to break, the trial court was right to proceed immediately. The court also found that the mother failed to properly challenge evidence against her because she made "shotgun" objections rather than specific legal arguments for each document. Ultimately, the court upheld the decree denying her access to the child based on evidence of untreated addiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"A "ready" announcement for trial remains binding even if a settlement is reached; if that settlement fails, you must be prepared to go to trial immediately. Furthermore, general objections to a group of exhibits are insufficient to preserve your rights for an appeal—each piece of evidence requires a specific, individual objection."
Sebastian Linke v. Kyle Folmer
COA04
In Sebastian Linke v. Kyle Folmer, the San Antonio Court of Appeals addressed whether a judgment is final for appeal purposes when it expressly reserves a ruling on a prevailing party’s attorney’s fees. Despite the judgment containing boilerplate language stating it was 'final and appealable,' the court analyzed the record under the Lehmann and Sealy Emergency Room standards. It determined that because the prevailing party had a mandatory contractual claim for fees that the trial court explicitly deferred for a later hearing, the judgment did not actually dispose of all claims. Consequently, the court held that the judgment was not final and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never rely on 'final and appealable' boilerplate language if the trial court has reserved a ruling on mandatory attorney's fees. To avoid a jurisdictional trap or a dismissed appeal, ensure the final decree expressly grants, denies, or severs all pending fee claims."
Antonio Munoz Aserradero, LLC v. Thomas
COA12
In Antonio Munoz Aserradero, LLC v. Thomas, a worker was injured during a 'try-out' day at a sawmill. The employer sought to dismiss the worker's negligence lawsuit, arguing that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy applied because the worker was an 'employee' as a matter of law, pointing to a generated pay stub and the payment of medical benefits. The Tyler Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's refusal to grant a directed verdict for the employer. The court reasoned that 'employee' status requires a 'contract of hire' based on mutual assent and a promise of payment. Because testimony suggested the parties were only testing the arrangement and would 'talk about employment' later, there was a genuine dispute for the jury to decide whether a contract actually existed at the time of the injury.
Litigation Takeaway
"Employment status is determined by the fundamentals of contract formation—offer, acceptance, and a clear agreement on pay—rather than just payroll records or insurance payments. In family law disputes over income or earning capacity, you can challenge a spouse's claimed 'employment' (or lack thereof) by looking past administrative labels to see if a valid 'contract of hire' was ever actually formed."
In Re Michelle Chase
COA05
In a Dallas County Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR), Michelle Chase challenged the trial court's jurisdiction. After her plea was denied, she sought a writ of mandamus from the Fifth Court of Appeals to compel a dismissal. The appellate court denied the request, finding that Chase failed to meet the high 'Prudential' standard: proving a clear abuse of discretion and showing that a regular appeal would not provide an adequate remedy. Additionally, the court struck her petition and record because they contained unredacted sensitive information—including Social Security numbers and children's names—violating Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9.
Litigation Takeaway
"Seeking emergency mandamus relief for jurisdictional disputes is an uphill battle that rarely bypasses the standard appeal process; more importantly, a failure to strictly redact a child's sensitive information can result in the court striking your filings and delaying your case."
Padilla-Madden v. Sandoval
COA04
A Texas resident sued an Alabama resident for breach of an oral agreement to share compensation earned as a trustee. The nonresident defendant challenged Texas jurisdiction via a special appearance, which the trial court denied. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the defendant purposefully availed herself of the Texas forum by traveling to San Antonio to execute the trust agreement and by managing trust assets stored in a San Antonio safe deposit box. The court held that the breach of contract claim related directly to these contacts because the defendant’s appointment and performance as trustee—the source of the disputed funds—were anchored in Texas.
Litigation Takeaway
"Nonresidents who physically travel to Texas to execute legal documents or manage assets in Texas-based safe deposit boxes provide sufficient 'minimum contacts' for Texas courts to exercise specific jurisdiction over them in disputes related to those documents or assets."
Lomerson v. Lyle Reid & Associates, L.L.C.
COA07
In a property damage dispute involving complex water drainage issues, the plaintiff failed to timely designate expert witnesses required to prove causation. The defendants moved for a no-evidence summary judgment, arguing that without admissible expert testimony, the plaintiff could not meet his burden of proof. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6, which mandates the automatic exclusion of untimely evidence unless the proponent establishes 'good cause' or a 'lack of unfair surprise or prejudice.' The court held that the plaintiff's claim of 'mistake' or counsel inadvertence did not satisfy these exceptions. Because expert testimony was necessary for the technical issue of causation, the court affirmed the summary judgment, effectively dismissing the case.
Litigation Takeaway
"Missing an expert designation deadline is more than a discovery hiccup—it is a potential case-killer. Under TRCP 193.6, late-filed experts are automatically excluded from consideration at the summary judgment stage unless you can prove a specific legal exception. In family law matters involving business valuations, property tracing, or custody evaluations, failing to adhere to the scheduling order can result in a 'no-evidence' judgment that ends your claim before trial."
Thomas v. State
COA04
In Thomas v. State, a defendant challenged his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove 'penetration' because the complainant denied full vaginal entry and used the phrase 'tried to penetrate.' The Fourth Court of Appeals analyzed the Penal Code and established case law, determining that penetration does not require full entry; rather, any contact more intrusive than the outer vaginal lips is sufficient. The court found that the complainant's testimony regarding 'pushing in' and sustained inward pressure for ten to twenty minutes allowed a rational jury to infer penetration. Additionally, the court addressed a dispute over jury readbacks, holding that trial courts have broad discretion under Article 36.28 to provide only the specific testimony in dispute rather than a comprehensive replay. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence legally sufficient and no abuse of discretion in the trial court's limited readback.
Litigation Takeaway
"Legal 'penetration' in sexual abuse allegations—whether in a criminal trial or a family law SAPCR—does not require full entry; evidence of any intrusion beyond the outer labia, such as sustained inward pressure or 'pushing in,' is sufficient to support a finding of abuse. When dealing with jury readbacks or selective quoting of the record, attorneys must make specific objections that match their appellate theories to avoid preservation traps."
In Re Sufian Khalaf
COA04
In a commercial motor vehicle accident case, an individual driver-defendant sought mandatory bifurcation of compensatory and exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 72.052. The plaintiff argued the statutory right to bifurcation applied only to employer-entities, a position the trial court adopted in denying the motion. On mandamus review, the San Antonio Court of Appeals analyzed the plain language of the statute, noting the mandatory directive 'shall' and the broad definition of 'a defendant' which includes vehicle operators. The court held that trial courts have no discretion to deny a timely bifurcation motion filed by an individual driver and granted mandamus relief to prevent the prejudice of 'tainted' jury deliberations.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family law cases involving interspousal torts or joined third-party claims, attorneys should move for mandatory bifurcation of punitive damages to prevent inflammatory 'bad act' evidence from unfairly influencing the jury's perception of the 'just and right' division of the community estate."