Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1262 opinions found
In re L.C.
COA12
After the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) removed her children following a suspicious burn injury, a mother sought their return at an adversary hearing. Despite conflicting medical testimony and the mother’s lack of criminal or Department history, the trial court granted temporary managing conservatorship to DFPS. On mandamus, the Twelfth Court of Appeals conditionally granted relief, holding that the trial court abused its discretion. The appellate court analyzed the case under Texas Family Code Section 262.201(g) and concluded that DFPS failed to satisfy the cumulative three-prong test for continued removal. Specifically, the court found that evidence of a past injury with disputed origins was insufficient to prove a "substantial risk of continuing danger" to the children, particularly given the mother's cooperation with safety plans and the absence of any prior history of violence.
Litigation Takeaway
"Evidence of a past injury is not a "blank check" for DFPS to maintain conservatorship; practitioners must hold the Department to the strict, cumulative three-prong test of Section 262.201(g), emphasizing that the Department must prove a prospective "substantial risk of continuing danger" that cannot be mitigated by reasonable efforts."
In re Roland Joseph Seymour
COA14
After the 387th District Court of Fort Bend County denied a motion for enforcement in a family law matter, Roland Joseph Seymour filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the trial court's order. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the petition under the strict dual requirements for mandamus relief: a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and the lack of an adequate remedy by appeal. The court found that Seymour failed to provide a record sufficient to prove that the trial court's refusal to enforce the prior order was a violation of a clear legal duty or a departure from settled legal principles. Because the relator did not satisfy these high procedural burdens, the appellate court denied the petition.
Litigation Takeaway
"Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, not a substitute for a standard appeal. To successfully challenge a trial court's refusal to enforce an order, a party must provide a comprehensive record—including hearing transcripts—that proves the court didn't just make an unfavorable decision, but committed a clear legal error for which no other remedy exists."
In the Interest of C.G.H., B.G.H., M.J.H. and C.K.H., Children
COA05
An appellant sought to overturn a final divorce decree and child custody order but failed to provide the appellate court with a reporter’s record (the trial transcript) or a brief that complied with court rules. The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that without a record of the trial proceedings, it must be presumed that the evidence supported the judge's decision. Additionally, the court held that while pro se litigants are given some leeway, they must still follow the Rules of Appellate Procedure; because the appellant failed to provide proper legal authorities or record citations even after being warned, her issues were waived.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never attempt an appeal without ensuring a complete reporter’s record is filed; without a transcript of the trial, the appellate court will presume the trial judge was correct. Furthermore, pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys—failing to follow briefing rules and provide specific record citations will result in the loss of your right to have your claims reviewed."
Holton v. State
COA14
In Holton v. State, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed the preservation of error regarding expert testimony and jury charge instructions. Morris Holton III, convicted of aggravated sexual assault, argued on appeal that a police officer improperly bolstered a witness's credibility by testifying that her behavior was consistent with trauma and that his defense was prejudiced by the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard for extraneous offenses. The court held that the defense's trial objection—that the testimony 'invaded the province of the jury'—was a legal nullity that failed to preserve any error for appeal. Furthermore, while the trial court erred by not providing the required jury instruction regarding extraneous offenses, the error did not result in egregious harm because the evidence of those offenses was overwhelming.
Litigation Takeaway
"To preserve a challenge to expert testimony or witness bolstering, counsel must object before the witness answers and use specific grounds under the Rules of Evidence (such as Rule 702 or 403) rather than the obsolete 'province of the jury' objection. Additionally, always proactively request 'reasonable doubt' instructions for extraneous 'bad acts' in any phase of trial to avoid the difficult 'egregious harm' standard on appeal."
Jones v. State
COA08
In Jones v. State, the El Paso Court of Appeals affirmed a murder conviction, rejecting a self-defense claim where the defendant shot a victim several hours after an alleged robbery. The court analyzed the 'immediate necessity' requirement of the Texas Penal Code, concluding that a temporal gap of four to nine hours between a provocation and a 'preemptive strike' precludes a self-defense justification as a matter of law. Additionally, the court applied the 'Posey' rule, holding that trial judges have no duty to provide jury instructions on defensive justifications—such as the protection of property—unless they are affirmatively requested by the defendant.
Litigation Takeaway
"Past provocation is not a legal license for future violence; self-defense requires a 'split-second' immediate necessity rather than a retaliatory strike. Furthermore, trial counsel must specifically request defensive jury instructions on the record, as appellate courts will not rescue a party who fails to ask for these protections at trial."
City of Houston v. Varnado
COA14
After Rodney Varnado was injured in a collision involving a high-speed police pursuit, he sued the City of Houston for negligence. The City filed a Rule 91a motion to dismiss, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the lawsuit failed to overcome governmental immunity. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) and the Transportation Code, determining that when a plaintiff's own factual allegations "plausibly implicate" an emergency response, the plaintiff has the initial burden to specifically plead facts that negate the TTCA’s immunity exceptions. The court held that because Varnado's petition described a pursuit but failed to allege specific "reckless disregard" or violations of statutes governing emergency vehicles, the claim was legally baseless and must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"When suing governmental agents for injuries during high-conflict enforcement actions, like serving a protective order or executing a child-attachment writ, general negligence pleading is insufficient; you must specifically plead facts that negate the 'emergency-response exception' or risk immediate dismissal under Rule 91a."
In re Rocio Gomez
COA01
Relator Rocio Gomez sought a writ of mandamus from the First Court of Appeals to vacate a divorce decree while she simultaneously had a motion to vacate the same decree pending in the trial court. The appellate court analyzed the petition under the principle that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy intended only for situations where no adequate legal remedy exists. The court determined that because the trial court still held plenary power and had already scheduled a hearing on the motion to vacate, the request for appellate intervention was premature. The court held that the trial court must be afforded the first opportunity to address and correct its own judgment through standard post-trial procedures, leading to the denial of the mandamus petition.
Litigation Takeaway
"Always exhaust your trial court remedies, such as a Motion for New Trial or Motion to Vacate, before seeking a writ of mandamus; otherwise, the appellate court will likely deny your petition as premature."
Elaine T. Marshall, et al. v. Preston Marshall
COA14
In this long-running fiduciary dispute, a beneficiary challenged a trustee’s "Wyoming Maneuver"—the merger of Texas-based trusts into Wyoming entities to avoid local oversight. After the trial court issued a temporary injunction in 2017 to preserve the status quo, the trustees later moved to dissolve it, arguing that several trusts had since terminated and the litigation had matured. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the request using the mootness doctrine for the terminated trusts and the "change in circumstances" standard for the active ones. The court held that while the injunction must be dissolved for trusts that have reached their natural termination, it remains in force for active trusts because the passage of time and completion of discovery do not eliminate the underlying risk of asset dissipation or fiduciary breach.
Litigation Takeaway
"A temporary injunction is a resilient tool that does not expire simply because a case lingers for years; it remains the most effective way to prevent a spouse or trustee from 'decanting' assets into out-of-state jurisdictions. To dissolve an aging injunction, you must prove a qualitative change in the case's risk profile or show that the specific assets have already been distributed according to trust terms."
De La Vega v. Imming
COA08
In De La Vega v. Imming, a party appealed a judgment and posted a $20,000 cash bond to pause the legal process. While the appeal was pending, the parties reached a settlement. The person who appealed filed a motion to dismiss the case and asked the appellate court to return their bond money and split the court costs. The El Paso Court of Appeals analyzed the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and determined that because the motion was filed by only one party (even though it was "unopposed"), the court did not have the authority to return the money or change the default rule that the person who appeals pays all costs. The court held that while the appeal could be dismissed, the request for the bond refund must be handled by the original trial court.
Litigation Takeaway
"When settling a case on appeal, a simple "motion to dismiss" is not enough to protect your interests. To ensure your bond money is returned promptly and costs are shared, you must file a joint agreement signed by both parties. Failing to do so can leave your cash locked in a court registry for months and leave you responsible for 100% of the appellate costs."
In re North Houston Pole Line, L.P. and Erik Garza Pena
COA01
This case centers on a dispute over whether a court-ordered medical examination under Rule 204.1 can be recorded or attended by an attorney. After a trial court ordered that four medical exams be audio and video recorded and attended by the plaintiff's counsel, the defendants sought mandamus relief. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the "special circumstances" test, which requires the party seeking a recording to provide a specific factual basis showing a "particularized need"—such as a client's inability to recount the exam due to cognitive deficits. The court determined that the plaintiff failed to meet this burden, relying instead on the general adversarial nature of the exams. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing these conditions without a factual basis, conditionally granting the writ of mandamus to vacate the recording and attendance requirements.
Litigation Takeaway
"To record a court-ordered medical or mental health evaluation, you must prove "special circumstances" with specific evidence of a client's vulnerability; general arguments about fairness or the adversarial nature of the exam are legally insufficient to allow cameras or lawyers in the room."