Opinion Library

Mengistu Taye v. 3000 Sage Apartments

COA14

In Taye v. 3000 Sage Apartments, the appellant challenged a trial court's denial of a motion to 'seal or redact' sensitive data within court records. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the distinction between Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a, which governs the sealing of entire court records, and Rule 21c, which governs the redaction of specific sensitive data points like Social Security numbers and bank accounts. The court found that while Rule 76a specifically authorizes an immediate interlocutory appeal, Rule 21c does not. Applying a substance-over-form analysis, the court determined the appellant was seeking redaction rather than sealing. Consequently, the court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal because the order was neither a final judgment nor a statutorily authorized interlocutory appeal.

Litigation Takeaway

"Labeling a motion as a 'Motion to Seal' will not grant you an automatic right to an interlocutory appeal if the substance of your request is merely the redaction of sensitive data under Rule 21c. To preserve the right to an immediate appeal regarding privacy, practitioners must strictly comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 76a; otherwise, the only path for immediate appellate relief is the significantly higher burden of a Petition for Writ of Mandamus."

January 27, 2026

In Re Dolcefino Communications, LLC d/b/a Dolcefino Media

COA14

In a divorce action between Jay Keith Sears and Debra Louise McLeod, Dolcefino Media intervened to challenge a four-year-old 'Agreed Sealing Order.' The trial court refused to unseal docket entries and reporter's records without providing a specific legal or factual basis for the continued sealing. On mandamus review, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the common law right of public access, which presumes court records are open unless a court balances competing interests and articulates specific reasons for closure on the record. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to perform this balancing test or 'show its work,' and it conditionally granted mandamus relief requiring the trial court to vacate its order and perform the necessary analysis.

Litigation Takeaway

"Agreed sealing orders are not bulletproof; to protect sensitive divorce records from media intervention, counsel must ensure the trial court record includes specific evidence of harm and a clear balancing of interests to justify continued privacy."

Espinoza v. FGMS Holdings, LLC

COA13

Alberto Espinoza filed a petition to challenge a tax sale of his homestead and submitted a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. Despite this, the trial court ordered him to deposit $60,237.44 into the court registry or face the dismissal of his claims with prejudice. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed Rule 145, which protects indigent parties from "pay-to-play" orders unless the court follows strict procedural safeguards, including conducting an evidentiary hearing and making specific findings regarding the party's actual ability to pay. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to comply with these mandatory procedures and conditionally granted mandamus relief to vacate the order.

Litigation Takeaway

"A trial court cannot force an indigent litigant who has filed a Rule 145 Statement to pay a deposit into the court registry—whether for expert fees, amicus attorneys, or receivers—without first holding a hearing and making specific findings that the party actually has the financial means to pay. If an order lacks these findings or the required notice of the right to challenge, it is a clear abuse of discretion reviewable by mandamus."

In Re Mitchell William Blakeley

COA09

In a divorce and custody dispute, the husband (Relator) sought a writ of mandamus to overturn two trial court orders: one granting the wife interim attorney's fees and another denying his request to designate an expert witness after the deadline. The Ninth Court of Appeals analyzed the case under the strict mandamus standard, which requires showing both a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy through a standard appeal. The court found that the trial court acted within its broad discretion regarding interim fees under the Texas Family Code and that the Relator failed to meet the burden for late expert designation under Rule 193.6. Ultimately, the court held that the Relator failed to demonstrate entitlement to extraordinary relief, denying the petition.

Litigation Takeaway

"Trial courts have vast discretion over temporary orders and discovery schedules; challenging these rulings mid-case via mandamus is extremely difficult unless you can prove the trial court's decision was completely arbitrary or effectively ends your case."

Termination of Parental Rights

Alvarez v. State

COA06

In Alvarez v. State, the Sixth Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant's seven-year confinement of a child in a van, which resulted in severe physical stunting and profound developmental delays, supported a conviction for injury to a child. The court analyzed the 'cumulative force' of the evidence, including the child’s lack of education, social isolation, and extreme malnutrition. The court held that such environmental deprivation constitutes both 'serious bodily injury' and 'serious mental deficiency' under the Texas Penal Code, affirming the defendant's first-degree felony conviction because the injuries were a direct result of intentional acts and the omission of necessary care.

Litigation Takeaway

"Severe neglect, educational deprivation, and social isolation can be legally classified as 'serious mental deficiency' and 'serious bodily injury.' This provides a powerful evidentiary framework for family law practitioners to seek the termination of parental rights or secure protective orders by framing 'off-the-grid' isolation not as a lifestyle choice, but as intentional harm."

Child Support

In the Interest of P.J.G., A Child

COA13

In this family law case, a father representing himself appealed a court order for child support and custody (SAPCR), claiming he did not consent to the Title IV-D child support system and alleging that federal funding creates a judicial conflict of interest. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(i), which requires a party to provide clear legal arguments supported by relevant authority. The court found that the father's arguments relied on 'sovereign citizen' rhetoric and federal cases that did not support his claims. Because he failed to provide a substantive legal analysis of how the trial court actually erred, the appellate court held that he waived his right to challenge the order and affirmed the lower court's decision.

Litigation Takeaway

"Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys; failing to provide a clear, legally-supported roadmap of trial court errors in an appellate brief will result in a waiver of those claims, regardless of their perceived constitutional importance."