Who has the burden of proof in court proceedings?
This question has been addressed in 4 Texas court opinions:
In Re Yaneth Lopez
COA13 — February 17, 2026
In this SAPCR proceeding, Relator Yaneth Lopez sought a mandatory venue transfer under Texas Family Code § 155.201(b), arguing the child had resided in a different county for six months and that the opposing party failed to file a controverting affidavit. The trial court denied the motion. On review, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the request under the standard mandamus framework, noting that while venue transfers are often mandatory, the Relator still carries the burden of providing a sufficient record under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52 to prove a clear abuse of discretion. The Court held that because the Relator failed to provide an adequate record establishing the trial court's error or the lack of an adequate remedy on appeal, the petition for writ of mandamus must be denied.
Litigation Takeaway
“A mandatory venue statute does not guarantee mandamus relief; practitioners must meticulously curate the appellate record, including all supporting affidavits and hearing transcripts, to affirmatively prove the trial court's abuse of discretion.”
Jennifer Jo Stricker v. The State of Texas
COA05 — January 29, 2026
In Stricker v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals addressed a trial court's exclusion of a public spectator during jury selection due to a large venire panel filling the courtroom. The appellate court analyzed the closure under the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, applying the four-prong Waller v. Georgia test. Because the trial court failed to consider reasonable alternatives to accommodate the spectator or make specific findings on the record justifying the closure, the court held that the exclusion constituted a structural error. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial without the need for a showing of actual harm.
Litigation Takeaway
“Limited seating or a crowded gallery is not a valid legal reason to exclude public spectators from a jury trial; doing so without specific constitutional findings creates a 'structural error' that can automatically void your entire case on appeal regardless of the evidence.”
In the matter of the name change of D. A. M.-F.
COA08 — February 11, 2026
After a father filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs in a minor's name-change proceeding, the trial court ordered him to pay a $350 filing fee despite the statement being uncontested. The El Paso Court of Appeals reversed the order, analyzing Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. The court held that an uncontested Statement of Inability is conclusive as a matter of law and that a trial court abuses its discretion by ordering payment without providing the mandatory ten-day notice and conducting a formal oral evidentiary hearing.
Litigation Takeaway
“Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145 is a mandatory procedural framework, not a suggestion. A trial court cannot "informally" bypass the requirements for an indigency claim; any order to pay costs must be preceded by a formal motion or inquiry, ten days' notice, and a full evidentiary hearing.”
Moir Watershed Services, LLC v. Law Office of Heath Gurinsky, PLLC and Spencer Hofmann
COA10 — January 29, 2026
In Moir Watershed Servs., LLC v. Law Office of Heath Gurinsky, PLLC, a Texas-based company sued a New York law firm in a Texas court for legal malpractice and breach of contract. The New York firm challenged the lawsuit, arguing that Texas courts lacked personal jurisdiction over them since they were based in New York and the work was performed there. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case, holding that merely entering into a contract with a Texas resident does not establish the 'purposeful availment' necessary for jurisdiction. The court concluded that because the legal services were performed outside of Texas and the defendants did not specifically target the Texas market, they lacked the minimum contacts required to be sued in a Texas forum.
Litigation Takeaway
“Hiring an out-of-state attorney or expert for your legal matter does not guarantee you can sue them in Texas if something goes wrong. If their work is performed in their home state and they haven't purposefully reached into Texas to conduct business, you may be forced to litigate any malpractice or fee disputes in their jurisdiction, significantly increasing your costs and risks.”