Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1447 opinions found
Absolute Oil + Gas, LLC v. Chord Energy Corp.
COA01
In Absolute Oil + Gas, LLC v. Chord Energy Corp., the trial court severed dismissed tort and unjust enrichment claims from an ongoing contract dispute to create a final, appealable judgment. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the severance under the three-prong Guaranty Federal test, focusing on whether the claims were 'factually interwoven.' The court found that because all claims stemmed from the same alleged collusive scheme to inflate costs and shared identical parties and evidence, severance risked inconsistent rulings—particularly regarding whether an express contract barred quasi-contractual recovery. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion, reversing the severance order because the claims were inextricably linked by shared operative facts.
Litigation Takeaway
"Prevent 'divide and conquer' tactics in complex property litigation by using the Interwoven Claims Doctrine to block the severance of tort claims (like fraud on the community) from the main property division, ensuring a single, cohesive 'just and right' adjudication."
Ex Parte Giambi Boyd
COA01
In Ex Parte Boyd, a defendant was held for 560 days on a $1.2 million bond for murder and aggravated assault charges. Despite the severity of the crimes, the State admitted it was not ready for trial because forensic firearms testing was still pending. The First Court of Appeals analyzed Article 17.151 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that a felony defendant must be released on a personal bond or have their bail reduced to an affordable amount if the State is not ready for trial within 90 days of detention. The court held that this statute is mandatory and does not permit a "safety exception" for dangerous offenses. Consequently, because the defendant proved he could only afford a $5,000 bond, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and ordered the bail reduction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not rely on the criminal justice system to keep a violent or dangerous party incarcerated during a family law case; if the State isn't ready for trial within 90 days, the party may be released on a nominal bond regardless of the charges. Family law practitioners must proactively secure civil Protective Orders and restrictive temporary orders to ensure the safety of their clients and children."
In re Kirt McGhee
COA09
In a dispute over attorney’s fees, a trial court ordered a party to produce unredacted billing invoices and supplemental expert disclosures, despite a prior appellate ruling that the original disclosures were sufficient. The Ninth Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief, holding that the 'law of the case' doctrine prevented the trial court from revisiting the adequacy of disclosures already validated on appeal. The court further clarified that seeking attorney's fees does not result in an automatic waiver of attorney-client privilege for billing descriptions and that a party cannot be compelled to produce records that are no longer in their possession or control.
Litigation Takeaway
"Requesting attorney’s fees does not waive your right to redact privileged strategy and communications from your billing records; additionally, once an appellate court confirms your expert disclosures are adequate, the trial court cannot force you to supplement them with more detail on remand."
Boardman v. State
COA13
In a criminal burglary case with significant implications for family law evidence, the defendant challenged the admission of bodycam footage from a subsequent, unrelated traffic stop used to identify him. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals focused on whether the defendant's trial objection under Rule 403 (unfair prejudice) was sufficient to preserve a complaint under Rule 404(b) (extraneous acts). The court held that a Rule 403 objection does not preserve a Rule 404(b) challenge and that the footage was admissible because its high probative value regarding the defendant's identity—linking his clothing and vehicle to the crime scene—was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.
Litigation Takeaway
"To protect your record for appeal, a Rule 403 objection is not a "catch-all"; you must specifically invoke Rule 404(b) if you are challenging the admission of extraneous acts or character evidence, even when the evidence is a "mundane" video like a traffic stop."
City of Houston v. Pellott
COA14
In City of Houston v. Pellott, a plaintiff sued the city under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) but failed to specifically plead that timely statutory notice was provided to the governmental unit. The City moved for dismissal under Rule 91a, arguing the petition lacked a basis in law because it failed to allege this jurisdictional prerequisite. Although the plaintiff provided evidence in a response suggesting that notice had actually been sent and received, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals focused strictly on the pleadings. The court analyzed the case under the Harris County v. Sykes doctrine, which requires dismissal with prejudice when a party fails to cure a jurisdictional pleading defect after being given multiple opportunities to replead. The court reversed the trial court's denial of the motion and rendered a judgment dismissing the case with prejudice.
Litigation Takeaway
"When suing a governmental entity—whether for incidents involving CPS, school districts, or police during possession exchanges—pleading statutory notice in your petition is a jurisdictional requirement, not a suggestion. You cannot rely on external evidence or 'actual notice' to save a case if your formal pleadings are defective; if you fail to fix the petition after a challenge, the court can dismiss your claim permanently with prejudice."
Ex Parte Giambi Boyd
COA01
After being detained for 560 days on a $1.2 million bond for felony charges, Giambi Boyd sought a bond reduction because the State failed to announce it was ready for trial within the statutory 90-day window. The trial court denied his pretrial writ of habeas corpus despite the State admitting it was still awaiting forensic lab results. The First Court of Appeals reversed the decision, analyzing Article 17.151 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that a felony defendant must be released on personal bond or have their bail reduced to an affordable amount if the State is not ready for trial within 90 days. The court held that this provision is mandatory and takes precedence over general safety factors, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by maintaining an unattainable bond.
Litigation Takeaway
"In high-conflict family law cases involving parallel criminal charges, practitioners can use Article 17.151 to prevent 'strategic detention.' If the State is not ready for trial within 90 days of a client's felony arrest, counsel can force a bond reduction to an affordable amount, ensuring the client can participate in mediation, attend hearings, and defend their parental rights in the civil suit."
Mahasneh v. Mahasneh
COA02
A former wife sought a protective order against her ex-husband after he engaged in a persistent pattern of stalking, including placing a GPS tracker on her vehicle and surveilling her workplace. The trial court issued a 30-year protective order under Chapter 7B of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and awarded her attorney's fees. On appeal, the Second Court of Appeals examined whether the evidence supported such a long duration and whether the attorney's fees were sufficiently proven. The court affirmed the 30-year protective order, ruling that Chapter 7B allows for long-term orders based on stalking without the "future family violence" findings required by the Family Code. However, the court reversed the attorney's fees award, holding that counsel's testimony was too conclusory and failed to meet the strict "lodestar" requirements—specifically failing to detail the hours worked, the hourly rate, and the specific tasks performed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Winning a protective order does not exempt you from strict evidentiary rules for attorney's fees; always provide a detailed "lodestar" breakdown—including specific tasks, hours, and rates—or risk losing the fee award on appeal. Additionally, consider utilizing Chapter 7B of the Code of Criminal Procedure for stalking cases, as it can provide longer-term protection than the Family Code with different evidentiary requirements."
The City of Arlington v. Airport Properties, Inc.
COA02
After Airport Properties, Inc. sued the City of Arlington, the City filed a plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity. The trial court denied the plea, and the City filed an interlocutory appeal. While the appeal was pending, Airport Properties nonsuited all its claims against the City. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 162, which provides an 'absolute right' to nonsuit claims before all evidence is introduced. Because the City had no pending counterclaims for affirmative relief, the court held that the nonsuit extinguished the live controversy, rendering the interlocutory appeal moot and stripping the appellate court of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"A plaintiff can use a Rule 162 nonsuit as a 'kill switch' to moot a pending interlocutory appeal and reset the jurisdictional battle, provided the respondent has not anchored the litigation with an independent claim for affirmative relief."
Blevins v. Brown
COA07
In Blevins v. Brown, a plaintiff filed suit for slander and tortious interference but failed to include specific factual details regarding the alleged defamatory statements. After the defendant filed a Rule 91a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff attempted to file an amended petition on the day of the hearing to cure the defects. The Seventh Court of Appeals analyzed the conflict between the general amendment provisions of Rule 65 and the specific requirements of Rule 91a.5(c), determining that the specific three-day deadline for Rule 91a amendments is mandatory and supersedes general rules. The court held that the trial court properly refused to consider the late amendment and affirmed the dismissal, ruling that defamation claims lacking specific factual predicates constitute legally baseless 'threadbare recitals.'
Litigation Takeaway
"Precision is paramount when pleading 'crossover' torts like defamation in family law; you must provide specific facts—the who, what, when, and where—in your petition and remember that the Rule 91a amendment window closes strictly three days before the hearing."
In the Interest of A.R. and C.R., Children
COA10
In this parental termination case, a mother’s court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal was frivolous, and simultaneously moved to withdraw from the case. The Tenth Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record and agreed that there were no arguable grounds for reversal, affirming the termination decree. However, the court denied the attorney’s motion to withdraw. Relying on the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in In re P.M., the court concluded that a parent’s statutory right to counsel persists through the exhaustion of all appellate remedies, including the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. Therefore, an attorney cannot withdraw simply because the appeal is deemed meritless at the intermediate stage.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas parental termination cases, the right to court-appointed counsel is a "long-tail" obligation; even if an attorney believes an appeal is meritless, they must generally remain on the case until the client has had the opportunity to seek review from the Texas Supreme Court."