Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1262 opinions found
MedCare EMS v. Flores
COA13
In MedCare EMS v. Flores, a plaintiff filed a medical negligence claim after being injured when an emergency stretcher tipped over. The plaintiff timely served an expert report by a paramedic; however, Texas law requires a physician to provide opinions on medical causation. The defendant sought a mandatory dismissal, arguing the report was a legal nullity. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA) under the "Scoresby" standard, which favors a lenient interpretation of expert reports. The court held that if a report is served timely and addresses the required elements—even if the expert lacks the specific statutory qualifications—it is considered a 'deficient report' rather than 'no report.' Consequently, the trial court has the discretion to grant a 30-day extension to cure the deficiency, preventing a 'gotcha' dismissal of potentially meritorious claims.
Litigation Takeaway
"A technical error in an expert's qualifications is not a terminal failure; as long as your initial report addresses standard of care, breach, and causation in good faith, you can secure a 30-day extension to fix qualification issues, such as replacing a paramedic's causation opinion with one from a licensed physician."
Hawkins v. State
COA14
In Hawkins v. State, a defendant out on bond for a prior murder was charged with a second murder after GPS data from his court-ordered ankle monitor placed him at the scene. Hawkins sought to suppress the location data, claiming the search warrant was invalid under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion, holding that individuals wearing court-ordered monitors as a condition of their release have no reasonable expectation of privacy in that data. The court also clarified that the State can challenge a defendant's standing to contest a search for the first time on appeal because standing is a threshold legal requirement.
Litigation Takeaway
"GPS tracking data from a court-ordered ankle monitor is a powerful and admissible tool in family law "crossover" cases. Because individuals under court-mandated monitoring have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their movement data, that information is discoverable and generally exempt from Fourth Amendment-style privacy objections. This is particularly useful in custody or protective order litigation to prove violations of stay-away zones or unauthorized contact."
Cotton v. Smith
COA13
In Cotton v. Smith, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals addressed the jurisdictional requirements for a permissive interlocutory appeal. The Appellants sought to challenge rulings on corporate standing and notice requirements before the final judgment. Although the trial court signed an order intended to allow the appeal, the order merely recited statutory boilerplate language without identifying the specific 'controlling question of law' or explaining how an immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation. The appellate court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 168 and Section 51.014(d) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, concluding that these procedural requirements are mandatory and jurisdictional. Because the trial court's order failed to define the legal issues or provide a substantive ruling on them, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"When seeking a permissive interlocutory appeal, you cannot rely on 'boilerplate' language in a trial court's order. To avoid a jurisdictional dismissal, the order must explicitly state the specific legal question at issue, provide a substantive ruling on that question, and detail exactly how an early appeal will save time or litigation costs. A poorly drafted order is a 'death warrant' for your appeal."
In re Eandre Juwon Mott
COA09
In this parentage action, an incarcerated relator sought a writ of mandamus to compel a Jefferson County trial court to hold a hearing on a petition filed five years earlier. The Ninth Court of Appeals denied the petition, finding that the relator failed to provide a proper record or proof of service on the child's mother. The court analyzed the case under the high standards for mandamus relief, concluding that because the relator could not prove the case was "at issue" or that he had diligently pursued a setting, the trial court had no ministerial duty to act.
Litigation Takeaway
"Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that requires more than just showing a case has been pending for a long time; you must provide a complete record proving that all parties have been served and that you have made recent, diligent efforts to secure a hearing."
In re Grayson Mill Operating, LLC
COA14
In a mandamus proceeding, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed whether a plaintiff could invoke the Texas residency exception to avoid a forum non conveniens dismissal by moving to the state after a claim accrued or a lawsuit was filed. The trial court had denied the motion to dismiss, viewing the residency determination as a flexible matter of first impression. However, the appellate court analyzed Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 71.051(e) and concluded that allowing post-incident relocation to satisfy the residency requirement would encourage "mischief" and blatant forum shopping. The court held that residency for the purpose of this statutory exception must be fixed at the time the cause of action accrued or when the suit was filed. Because the trial court misapplied the law, the appellate court conditionally granted mandamus relief.
Litigation Takeaway
"A party cannot "manufacture" Texas residency to subvert a forum non conveniens claim by moving to the state after a dispute has already begun. This ruling provides family law practitioners with a critical defense against "migratory spouses" who relocate to Texas mid-dispute to seek a more favorable jurisdictional or legal environment."
Cunningham v. Smith
COA02
In Cunningham v. Smith, an incarcerated litigant challenged the dismissal of his lawsuit for want of prosecution (DWOP) after he failed to appear at a scheduled dismissal hearing. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a, noting that while the litigant claimed he mailed a motion to retain, he failed to file a verified motion to reinstate after the case was dismissed. The court held that incarceration does not excuse a party from procedural requirements. Because the plaintiff bypassed the trial court and filed a notice of appeal instead of a motion to reinstate, he waived his due process complaints. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding no abuse of discretion.
Litigation Takeaway
"Incarceration is not a "get out of jail free" card for legal deadlines. If your case is dismissed while you are incarcerated, you must file a verified motion to reinstate in the trial court to preserve your right to appeal; filing a notice of appeal alone is insufficient to save your claims."
In the Interest of E.J., a Child
COA02
In this case, a mother’s parental rights were terminated by a trial court based on specific conduct-based grounds and the child's best interest. Her appointed appellate attorney filed an Anders brief, stating that after a thorough review, there were no valid legal grounds to overturn the decision. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals conducted its own independent review of the record and the mother's personal responses, concluding that the evidence supported the termination. While the court affirmed the termination order, it denied the attorney's motion to withdraw, holding that appointed counsel in termination cases must continue representation through potential Texas Supreme Court proceedings unless specific 'good cause' is shown.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas parental termination cases, an appointed attorney's duty doesn't end just because an appeal is considered 'frivolous.' Under the 'P.M. Mandate,' counsel must generally remain on the case through the Texas Supreme Court stage, providing parents with continuous legal representation throughout the entire appeals process."
S. T. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
COA03
After a child was injured by a mother's partner, the Department of Family and Protective Services initially sought to terminate the mother's parental rights. However, following the mother’s successful completion of most of her service plan, the Department recommended a monitored return of the child. When the mother later tested positive for marijuana and allowed an unauthorized visitor, the trial court terminated her rights. On appeal, the Third Court of Appeals reversed the termination, analyzing the 'best interest' of the child through the Holley factors. The court held that because the Department had previously deemed the home safe for a return and the subsequent violations did not involve physical harm, the evidence was factually insufficient to support the permanent 'death penalty' of civil litigation: the termination of the parent-child bond.
Litigation Takeaway
"Progress in a service plan and Department concessions—like a recommended monitored return—create a powerful defense; if the State later pivots back to termination, they must prove that new, technical violations outweigh your demonstrated ability to provide a safe and stable home."
In re P.W.
COA02
A seventeen-year-old mother signed an affidavit of voluntary relinquishment of her parental rights that included an express waiver of service under Texas Family Code § 161.103. After her rights were terminated, she appealed, arguing the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction because, as a minor, she lacked the legal capacity to waive service of process. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals analyzed the conflict between the general common law rule prohibiting minors from waiving service and the specific provisions of the Texas Family Code. The court held that § 161.103 creates a specific statutory exception to the general disability of minority, meaning a minor parent's voluntary relinquishment affidavit containing a waiver of citation is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction without formal service.
Litigation Takeaway
"Texas Family Code § 161.103 serves as a statutory override to the common law rule that minors cannot waive service; a properly executed relinquishment affidavit from a minor parent is sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction and protect a termination judgment from collateral attacks based on lack of service."
Pullen v. Pullen
COA02
In Pullen v. Pullen, the parties reached a partial settlement regarding their property division while an appeal of their divorce decree was pending. They filed an unopposed motion under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2)(B) requesting that the appellate court set aside only the property division and remand it for a new division consistent with their agreement. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed its authority to perform a 'surgical remand,' noting that while trial courts cannot sever a divorce from the property division, appellate courts have the discretion to affirm the divorce and SAPCR (child-related) orders while remanding the marital estate if the divorce itself is not challenged. The court held that the property division was set aside without regard to the merits and remanded to the trial court, while the portions of the decree granting the divorce and establishing custody and support were affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Parties who reach a property settlement during an appeal can utilize Rule 42.1(a)(2)(B) to remand only the financial disputes to the trial court. This 'surgical remand' allows you to finalize a settlement agreement without risking the finality of the divorce itself or disturbing favorable custody and support orders."