Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1262 opinions found
Akiyode v. McGee
COA14
In Akiyode v. McGee, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed whether a party could use Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 27.2 to "pause" (abate) a premature appeal while waiting for a jury trial on remaining claims to conclude. The appellant attempted to appeal an order that explicitly left counterclaims open for a future jury trial, arguing that the appellate court should abate the case until a final judgment could be entered. The Court rejected this argument, clarifying that TRAP 27.2 is a tool for ministerial corrections or minor clarifications of an order’s finality—not a jurisdictional "waiting room" for pending trials. Because substantive claims remained to be adjudicated, the Court held the order was interlocutory and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never file a notice of appeal on a partial or "interlocutory" order with the expectation that the appellate court will hold the case until your trial is finished. Rule 27.2 only allows for the correction of ministerial errors or technical finality issues; it cannot be used to keep a premature appeal alive while the trial court conducts substantive proceedings like a jury trial on remaining claims."
Morrison v. State
COA14
In Morrison v. State, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant "possessed" a firearm found in a vehicle he occupied but did not own. Despite the presence of another person's identification and a lack of fingerprint evidence, the court applied the "affirmative links" doctrine—analyzing factors such as the weapon's proximity to the defendant, its visibility in plain view, the defendant's flight from officers, and his recorded jailhouse admissions. The court held that the cumulative force of these links was legally sufficient to prove the defendant exercised care, custody, and control over the contraband.
Litigation Takeaway
"Physical ownership is not required to prove possession; legal "control" can be established through proximity and behavior. Family law litigants can use the "affirmative links" doctrine to hold a parent accountable for drugs or weapons in their environment, even if they claim the items belong to a third party."
In the Interest of B.H.
COA04
In this interstate custody dispute, a Father filed a motion to modify the parent-child relationship in a Texas court that had previously issued orders regarding the child. Despite the Father's filing, the trial court initiated a conference with a Louisiana court and determined—on its own motion—that Texas was an 'inconvenient forum' because the child had lived in Louisiana for two years. The Father appealed, arguing the court lacked the authority to move the case without a formal request from a party or a full evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Texas law explicitly allows judges to relinquish jurisdiction 'sua sponte' (on their own) and that the law only requires parties be given an opportunity to submit information rather than requiring a formal hearing.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never assume that jurisdiction is safe just because the other parent hasn't challenged it. In interstate cases, Texas judges act as 'gatekeepers' and can move your case to another state on their own initiative if the child has a stronger connection elsewhere. If your child lives out of state, you must be prepared to immediately provide evidence regarding their school, healthcare, and support network to defend your choice of forum."
In the Interest of C.R., a Child
COA04
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's order terminating a mother's parental rights to her two-year-old child, who suffered from end-stage liver failure. The conflict centered on the mother's persistent failure to maintain a sterile environment and adhere to clinical protocols necessary for the child's survival before and after a life-saving transplant. The court analyzed the evidence under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), determining that the mother’s refusal to remediate horrific living conditions—including mold, maggots, and animal waste—despite receiving specialized education and free medical housing, constituted a conscious course of conduct that endangered the child. The court held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under both environmental and conduct-based grounds and that termination was in the child's best interest.
Litigation Takeaway
"In cases involving medically fragile children, 'endangerment' is a relative standard; a parent's failure to maintain sterile conditions or follow clinical hygiene protocols can elevate ordinary housekeeping issues to a termination-level 'conscious course of conduct.'"
Pentcheva v. Mundt
COA03
In this case, a biological mother sought to challenge a court order terminating her parental rights through a "bill of review." The trial court denied her request, treating the original termination order as a final, unchangeable judgment. On appeal, the Third Court of Appeals analyzed whether the order was truly final given that it arose from a combined "Petition for Termination and Adoption" but failed to address the adoption claim or the co-petitioner (the stepmother). Applying established legal standards for finality, the court determined that because the adoption remained pending and the order did not dispose of all parties and claims, the termination order was merely "interlocutory" (non-final). The court held that the trial court's denial of the mother's challenge was premature and reversed the ruling, remanding the case for further proceedings.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a legal action combines both termination of parental rights and adoption, the case is not legally final until both claims are officially resolved or dismissed by the court. If the adoption piece is left "hanging," the termination order remains open to legal challenges indefinitely, as the standard appellate deadlines never begin to run."
In re Luke B. Berry, M.D.
COA04
In this case, a doctor sought to block discovery of records from business entities he controlled, arguing that because the entities were not parties to the lawsuit, he should not have to produce their records. He also challenged the trial court's authority to reverse its own previous rulings that had initially shielded this information. The Fourth Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief, holding that trial courts maintain 'absolute control' over interlocutory discovery orders and may revisit or overrule them at any time before final judgment. Crucially, the court clarified that under Texas discovery rules, an individual party can be compelled to produce records held by non-party entities if that individual has 'possession, custody, or control' over the documents.
Litigation Takeaway
"Business owners cannot hide behind an 'entity shield' to avoid discovery in divorce or property litigation; if a party has the legal right to access an entity's records, they can be compelled to produce them personally. Furthermore, practitioners should remain aware that discovery 'wins' are interlocutory and subject to being revisited or reversed by the trial court as the case develops."
Gonzales v. State
COA04
In Gonzales v. State, a defendant sought to suppress drug evidence discovered in his bag following a warrantless arrest, arguing that the police lacked probable cause because they could not establish an 'affirmative link' between him and drug paraphernalia found nearby on the ground. The San Antonio Court of Appeals analyzed the procedural role of the 'affirmative link' doctrine, determining it is a standard used to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence for a conviction at trial, rather than a basis for pretrial suppression. The court held that the presence of drug paraphernalia in plain view and within arm’s reach provides sufficient probable cause for a warrantless arrest under the totality of the circumstances, making the subsequent search of the defendant's personal effects a valid search incident to arrest.
Litigation Takeaway
"The 'affirmative link' doctrine is a trial defense regarding the sufficiency of evidence, not a pretrial tool to suppress contraband; therefore, evidence of drugs found in proximity to a party remains admissible and relevant in family law proceedings regardless of whether the party 'owned' the substances."
In Re Richard Haddad
COA04
After a father was awarded the right to designate his child’s primary residence and moved to Virginia, the mother filed for a modification within months of the final order. She alleged communication issues and presented photos of bruises (which were later linked to the child's martial arts activities). The trial court granted temporary orders moving the child back to Texas. On appeal, the Fourth Court of Appeals found that the mother's affidavit failed to meet the strict requirements of Texas Family Code Section 156.102, which requires a showing of physical endangerment or significant emotional impairment for modifications sought within one year of a final order. The court conditionally granted mandamus relief, vacating the trial court's orders.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas, the law prioritizes custodial stability during the first year after a final order; to change a child's primary residence during this 'cooling-off period,' a parent must provide specific, factual evidence of endangerment or significant emotional harm, rather than just general complaints about co-parenting friction."
Rolling Oaks Mall LLC v. Bexar Appraisal District
COA04
A property owner challenged a tax appraisal in state court before filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and requesting a federal valuation under 11 U.S.C. § 505. The bankruptcy court dismissed the federal claim 'with prejudice' to abstain in favor of the state court proceeding, leading the taxing authority to argue that res judicata barred the state court suit. The Court of Appeals analyzed the nature of discretionary abstention, concluding that because the federal court declined to exercise jurisdiction for administrative reasons rather than deciding the property's value, there was no final adjudication on the merits. The court held that the federal dismissal did not trigger res judicata or collateral estoppel, allowing the state court valuation to proceed.
Litigation Takeaway
"A bankruptcy court's 'dismissal with prejudice' based on discretionary abstention is a jurisdictional hand-off, not a merits-based win; family law practitioners can use this to defeat a spouse's attempt to use federal bankruptcy filings to block state court property valuations."
Navarro v. State
COA04
In Navarro v. State, Alan Angelo Navarro appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting testimony from his ex-wife regarding his history of domestic violence. While Navarro had a 'running objection' to evidence regarding his relationship with the current complainant, the court analyzed the shift in the trial's legal context. Because Navarro presented witnesses to testify that he was a 'changed' and 'non-violent' man, he 'opened the door' to character rebuttal. The Fourth Court of Appeals held that the original running objection did not preserve the error for this new category of character evidence involving a third party, and therefore affirmed the conviction.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a party attempts to portray themselves as a 'changed person' or 'non-violent' in court, they effectively waive protections against their past history being introduced. Furthermore, litigators must remember that a 'running objection' to evidence about the current relationship will not protect the record if the other side introduces evidence about a former spouse; a new, specific objection is required to preserve the issue for appeal."