Weekly Digest
October 25 – October 31, 2025
3 opinions this week
City of Houston v. Harris
Supreme Court of Texas
The Supreme Court of Texas denied review of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals’ holding, allowing superseded admissions to be used as summary-judgment evidence, resulting in a circuit split regarding their evidentiary use.
Litigation Takeaway
“Superseded admissions in family-law cases can be treated as evidentiary material, influencing summary judgment strategies. Practitioners should carefully manage admissions and consider their potential evidentiary role even after amendments.”
In re Lynn Madison
Supreme Court of Texas
The Supreme Court of Texas held that an interlocutory TCPA appeal automatically stays all trial-court proceedings until the appellate mandate issues. The stay remains in effect until the mandate is issued, and any trial court rulings prior to that are unauthorized.
Litigation Takeaway
“Family-law litigators must treat any interlocutory TCPA appeal as a complete bar to trial-court proceedings until the mandate issues. Monitoring the appellate docket is crucial to determine when trial courts may proceed.”
D.V. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court held that a trial court may not terminate parental rights when the Department’s designated representative made an unequivocal, unrepudiated statement at trial withdrawing termination as requested relief. Termination in such circumstances is impermissible unless the Department affirmatively repudiates that withdrawal on the record.
Litigation Takeaway
“This decision requires immediate adjustments in trial practice when DFPS participates in child-related proceedings. DFPS counsel must ensure their witnesses’ testimony about relief is consistent with counsel’s position or must promptly and explicitly correct the record. Defense counsel (parents) should treat any on-the-record DFPS concession about relief as binding unless reversed on the spot; when a concession occurs, opposing counsel should demand clarification, make contemporaneous requests to reopen testimony, object, or obtain a written stipulation to preserve appellate rights. Judges must recognize the binding consequence of a DFPS designated representative’s statements about relief and should require explicit clarification before entering termination judgments.”