Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1576 opinions found
In the Interest of K.A.E.E. and K.M.-A.E., Children
COA10
The Department of Family and Protective Services sought to terminate parental rights following incidents of domestic violence and substance abuse. Despite being offered relocation assistance and shelter services, the mother chose to return to an abusive environment with the father and violated a court-ordered safety plan. The Tenth Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), emphasizing that endangerment occurs when a parent prioritizes an abusive relationship over a stable environment, even without evidence of actual injury to the child. The court held that the parents' continued association and rejection of safety resources constituted clear and convincing evidence to support termination and the best-interest finding.
Litigation Takeaway
"In termination proceedings, a parent's affirmative decision to reject domestic violence resources and return to an abuser in violation of a safety plan is potent evidence of endangering conduct, as 'endangerment' does not require a child to suffer actual physical injury."
Trevino v. State
COA13
In Trevino v. State, a defendant facing intoxication manslaughter charges attempted to prevent the prosecution from presenting graphic evidence—such as autopsy photos and scene footage—by offering to 'stipulate' (legally admit) to his intoxication and the resulting fatalities. He argued that because he conceded these facts, the evidence was unnecessarily prejudicial under Texas Rule of Evidence 403. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that while stipulations are required for 'prior conviction' elements, they do not give a party the power to strip the opponent of the right to tell the full narrative of the current incident. The court concluded that the State was entitled to present the 'full evidentiary force' of the case to provide context and support its theories of the crime.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family law disputes involving domestic violence or substance abuse, an opposing party cannot 'stipulate away' your right to show the court the full story. Admitting that an incident happened does not automatically block you from using high-impact evidence like 9-1-1 calls, photos, or police videos to show the court the true severity of the situation."
Adam Horwitz v. City of Denton, et al.
COA02
In this case, Appellant Adam Horwitz attempted to appeal interlocutory orders granting a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion to dismiss. Horwitz filed his notice of appeal nearly three months after the orders were signed, mistakenly believing that his filing of a motion for new trial extended the appellate deadline to 90 days, a belief reinforced by the trial court's docket labeling the orders as 'Final.' The Second Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1(b) and 28.1, which stipulate that accelerated appeals from interlocutory orders must be filed within 20 days and are not extended by motions for new trial. The court held that because the orders did not dispose of all parties and claims, they were interlocutory, the 20-day deadline applied, and the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never rely on a Motion for New Trial to extend your appellate deadlines for interlocutory orders. In accelerated appeals—common in family law for jurisdictional disputes or temporary injunctions—you must file your notice of appeal within 20 days of the signature, or you risk losing your right to appeal entirely."
Luis Noguera v. The State of Texas
COA01
In Luis Noguera v. The State of Texas, the defendant attempted to exercise his statutory 'absolute' right to sever consolidated criminal charges on the morning of trial. Despite having six months' notice of the State's intent to try the cases together, the defense failed to file a pretrial motion and instead raised the issue orally just before jury selection. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the request under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which treats severance as a pretrial pleading. The court held that because the request was not raised pretrial, it was untimely, and the trial court did not err in denying it despite the mandatory nature of the underlying right.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never wait until the morning of trial to invoke 'mandatory' procedural rights like severance, bifurcation, or separate trials. Even absolute entitlements are subject to timeliness requirements; if you fail to raise these issues in writing during the pretrial phase, you likely waive the right and fall into a preservation trap that appellate courts will not rescue."
Raven Robert Rodriguez v. State
COA11
Raven Robert Rodriguez was convicted of capital murder following the stabbing death of his long-term partner. On appeal, Rodriguez argued that the trial court erred by failing to limit the definitions of 'intentionally' and 'knowingly' in the jury charge and by admitting evidence of his prior acts of domestic violence against the victim. The Eleventh Court of Appeals held that while the jury charge was technically erroneous, it did not result in egregious harm given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including the defendant's admission and surveillance footage. Crucially, the court upheld the admission of prior domestic violence incidents, finding them relevant to establishing the nature of the relationship and the defendant's pattern of conduct.
Litigation Takeaway
"To successfully prove a pattern of domestic violence in family law cases, practitioners should prioritize objective corroboration—such as surveillance video, medical records, and photos—to supplement testimony. When prior acts of violence against the same partner are well-documented, they are highly admissible to establish context and risk, and appellate courts are unlikely to reverse such findings even if technical instructional errors occur at trial."
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."
Chenier v. State
COA01
In Chenier v. State, a defendant appealed his murder conviction, contending that the trial judge made improper comments during voir dire and violated the Confrontation Clause by limiting the cross-examination of a witness regarding third-party bias and threats. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the judge's voir dire remarks as explanatory hypotheticals regarding legal elements rather than biased commentary on the evidence. Regarding the cross-examination, the court emphasized that while defendants have a right to explore witness bias, trial courts maintain discretion to limit testimony that is speculative or marginally relevant. The court held that because the defense failed to provide a concrete offer of proof linking the alleged third-party threats to the witness's specific motive to testify, the trial court's limitations were reasonable and the conviction was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"To successfully impeach a witness based on third-party threats or intimidation, you must establish a concrete logical link between the threat and the witness's motive to lie; without a specific offer of proof connecting the two, trial courts have broad discretion to limit your cross-examination."
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."
Marquez v. State
COA11
In Marquez v. State, the defendant appealed a felony DWI conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient because no law enforcement officer personally observed him driving. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District of Texas analyzed the "operation" element of a DWI charge using a totality-of-the-circumstances test. The court reviewed evidence including a civilian witness's identification of the defendant as the driver, police finding the defendant alone in the driver’s seat of a running vehicle, and the defendant’s immediate flight and attempt to hide from officers. The court held that circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence and that the cumulative force of these factors was legally sufficient to prove the defendant operated the vehicle while intoxicated beyond a reasonable doubt.
Litigation Takeaway
"You do not need a 'smoking gun' or direct eyewitness testimony from a police officer to prove substance abuse or endangerment in court. Judges can rely on 'circumstantial markers'—like being found in the driver's seat of a running car or attempting to flee the scene—to establish a pattern of dangerous conduct that justifies restrictive parenting plans, supervised visitation, or protective orders."
Trevino v. Trevino
COA01
After Mark Anthony Trevino appealed a family law judgment, the trial court exercised its plenary power to grant a motion for new trial. The parties requested that the appellate court abate (pause) the appeal pending the outcome of the new trial. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the jurisdictional requirements for an appeal, noting that appellate jurisdiction generally requires a final judgment. The court held that because the grant of a new trial effectively vacates the original judgment, there was no longer a final order for the court to review. Consequently, the court held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal entirely rather than granting an abatement.
Litigation Takeaway
"A trial court’s order granting a new trial acts as a total 'reset' button that vacates the original judgment; this automatically divests the appellate court of jurisdiction, resulting in a dismissal of the appeal rather than a temporary pause."