Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1447 opinions found
Burns Surveying LLC v. Robert H. Burns and Jacob G. Pleasant
COA06
In this professional liability dispute, the plaintiffs sued a registered land surveyor for negligence but failed to attach the mandatory Chapter 150 certificate of merit to their original petition. After the trial court dismissed the claims without prejudice, the plaintiffs attempted to cure the defect by filing an amended petition with the required certificate in the same cause number. The Sixth Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 150.002 and Texas Supreme Court precedent, concluding that the 'first-filed' requirement applies to the very first petition asserting the claim in a specific case. The court held that a dismissal without prejudice requires the claimant to initiate an entirely new lawsuit to satisfy the contemporaneous filing requirement, and an amended petition cannot cure the initial failure to file.
Litigation Takeaway
"When suing a licensed professional like a surveyor, the certificate of merit must be attached to the very first petition filed. If the case is dismissed without prejudice for failing to do so, you cannot fix the error by amending the existing lawsuit; you must file a brand-new suit with a new cause number to satisfy the 'first-filed' rule."
In re Quintilya Thomas
COA08
In an original proceeding arising from family-law temporary orders, the relator asked the El Paso Court of Appeals for an emergency stay of “default temporary orders” but filed only a Rule 52.10 motion and no petition for writ of mandamus. The court treated the defect as jurisdictional: under Tex. R. App. P. 52.1 an original proceeding is commenced only by filing a mandamus petition, and Rule 52.10 temporary relief is merely ancillary and is available only after a petition invokes the court’s original jurisdiction. Because no petition was on file, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to grant any temporary relief or stay and dismissed the motion for want of jurisdiction, without prejudice to refiling after a mandamus petition is filed.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you need an emergency stay from a court of appeals in a family case, you cannot file a standalone “emergency stay pending mandamus” motion. File the mandamus petition first (or simultaneously) to invoke original jurisdiction; only then can Rule 52.10 temporary relief be considered—otherwise the motion will be dismissed and valuable time will be lost while temporary orders remain enforceable."
Raggio-2204 Jesse Owens, LLC v. Morgan
COA03
After a trial court's plenary jurisdiction had expired, it entered a sanctions judgment and subsequent turnover orders authorizing a receiver to seize and sell property belonging to Stacey Hammer's LLC. After the Austin Court of Appeals declared these orders void, Hammer and the LLC sued the judgment creditor, his attorney, and the receiver for damages related to the lost property. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b regarding the limits of plenary power and the doctrine of derived judicial immunity. The court held that because the underlying orders were void ab initio, the judgment creditor and the receiver could not claim immunity and were liable for restitution of the value of the property sold under the void authority.
Litigation Takeaway
"A court order signed after plenary power has expired is a legal nullity; practitioners and receivers who move property or distribute funds under a void order are not protected by judicial immunity and are subject to claims for restitution and conversion."
R.F. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
COA03
In this case, a mother appealed the termination of her parental rights, challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence regarding child endangerment and claiming she received ineffective assistance of counsel because her lawyer did not request a trial recess for her to testify. The Third Court of Appeals analyzed the "endangerment" ground under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E), noting that prenatal drug use followed by continued instability and a failure to complete court-ordered rehabilitation constitutes a voluntary course of endangering conduct. The court also reviewed the ineffective assistance claim under the Strickland standard, finding that without a developed record explaining trial counsel's motives, it must presume the lawyer's decisions were strategic. The court affirmed the trial court's order terminating the mother's parental rights.
Litigation Takeaway
"Prenatal drug use combined with a failure to maintain sobriety and stability after a child's removal provides strong grounds for termination based on endangerment. Additionally, parties seeking to appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel must develop a record—often through a motion for new trial—to prove that their attorney's actions were not part of a reasonable trial strategy."
In re K.K.E.
COA01
The Department of Family and Protective Services sought to terminate a mother's parental rights after she suffered a drug overdose while caring for her five-month-old child. The mother had a decade-long history of substance abuse and had previously lost parental rights to two other children. The court analyzed whether her conduct met the statutory grounds for endangerment and whether termination was in the child's best interest using the Holley factors. The court found that her history of drug-induced instability and failure to submit to drug testing during the trial created a presumption of continued endangerment. The First Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, holding that the mother's pattern of conduct and the child's need for stability in a foster placement outweighed the biological bond.
Litigation Takeaway
"A parent's history of substance abuse and prior terminations provides high evidentiary value for "endangerment" even without proof of immediate physical harm. In termination proceedings, a court will likely treat a failure to submit to drug testing as a positive test result, and practitioners must ensure all prescription medications are backed by current, verified medical documentation to avoid them being characterized as illegal substance abuse."
Jackey Raylorn Martin v. The State of Texas
COA07
In Jackey Raylorn Martin v. State, the defendant challenged the trial court’s pretrial ruling designating a forensic interviewer as the child-victim “outcry” witness under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.072, arguing the wrong outcry witness was selected. The Amarillo Court of Appeals focused first on error preservation, holding that a pretrial outcry/admissibility ruling is only preliminary and does not preserve appellate complaint; to preserve error, the defendant had to object again when the designated outcry witness actually testified before the jury. Because no contemporaneous objection was made at trial, the issue was waived under Texas preservation rules. In the alternative, the court held that even if the designation were incorrect, any error was harmless under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b) because the same key substance (penetration and identity) came in through other, unobjected-to evidence, including SANE/medical testimony and corroborating DNA evidence. The conviction was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Pretrial evidentiary wins don’t preserve anything by themselves: if you want appellate review, renew objections when the testimony/exhibit is offered at trial and get a clear ruling. And even a proven evidentiary mistake may not matter if the same core facts come in through other sources—so (1) object consistently across channels if you need harm, and (2) build redundant, independent proof if you’re the proponent."
Musk v. Brody
COA03
In this defamation case, Benjamin Brody argued that Elon Musk's Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) motion to dismiss was a nullity—and therefore untimely—because it was signed by out-of-state counsel before their pro hac vice admission was finalized. The Third Court of Appeals analyzed Texas's overarching policy of prioritizing the merits of a dispute over technical procedural "traps" and looked to persuasive authority regarding attorney signatures. The court held that if a trial court subsequently grants a pro hac vice motion, that admission cures the signature defect on earlier filings, meaning the TCPA motion was properly before the court and filed within the 60-day statutory window.
Litigation Takeaway
"A pending pro hac vice admission does not render a timely filed motion a "nullity"; provided the admission is eventually granted, the signature defect is cured, protecting parties from losing statutory rights like a TCPA dismissal due to technical filing deadlines."
In re K.M.R., a Child
COA14
In this parental termination case, a mother appealed the loss of her parental rights after her child tested positive for cocaine at birth. She argued that the trial court violated her due process by denying a request to delay the trial while she was in a behavioral hospital, and that her prenatal drug use did not constitute an endangering 'environment' because the child was removed immediately after birth. The 14th Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, holding that the mother failed to follow mandatory procedures by not including a sworn affidavit with her request for a delay. The court also clarified that under Texas law, the 'environment' of a child includes the womb, meaning drug use during pregnancy is sufficient evidence of endangerment to support termination.
Litigation Takeaway
"Always adhere to the technical requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 251 when seeking a trial delay; failing to include a sworn verification or affidavit can prevent you from challenging the denial on appeal. Furthermore, be aware that Texas courts consider prenatal drug use as creating an endangering environment, effectively neutralizing the defense that a parent never had post-birth custody of the child."
Childress v. Tradd
COA03
Following the death of Robert Caldwell, the executor of his estate sued Dione Childress for conversion after she removed estate property, claiming she was Caldwell's common-law wife. During litigation, Childress, acting pro se, failed to respond to discovery requests, including requests for admissions. The executor moved for summary judgment based on these 'deemed admissions.' Childress filed a response only four days before the hearing without seeking leave of court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, holding that under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c), a response filed less than seven days before a hearing is a nullity. Furthermore, under Rule 198.3, the failure to respond to admissions conclusively established the facts necessary for the estate to prevail. The court emphasized that pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as licensed attorneys.
Litigation Takeaway
"Procedural deadlines are absolute, and 'deemed admissions' are a litigation guillotine. In marriage and property disputes, failing to answer discovery requests can conclusively surrender your case, as courts will not grant leniency to pro se litigants who ignore the mandatory seven-day window for summary judgment responses or discovery deadlines."
Patterson v. State
COA07
In Patterson v. State, the Seventh Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court must provide statutory admonishments or specific due process warnings before accepting a 'plea of true' in a revocation or adjudication proceeding. The defendant challenged his fifteen-year sentence, arguing his plea was involuntary because the trial court failed to inform him of his right to plead 'not true' and failed to state the punishment range on the record. The court analyzed Article 26.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and constitutional due process standards, concluding that statutory admonishments required for initial pleas do not apply to the revocation context. The court held that a 'plea of true' is voluntary and binding if the totality of the record—including original plea paperwork and the defendant's own testimony—demonstrates the defendant was aware of the potential consequences, even if the trial judge remained silent regarding specific rights during the hearing.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family law enforcement and contempt proceedings, a respondent's admission or 'plea of true' is sufficient to support a revocation of suspended commitment without the trial court needing to provide formal, ritualistic warnings. If the respondent was notified of the potential consequences in the underlying motion or the original suspension order, their judicial admission will likely be upheld on appeal, making pre-hearing counseling on the finality of such admissions critical for practitioners."