Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1576 opinions found
In the Interest of K.H., K.H., K.H., and E.H., Children
COA14
In this case, a mother appealed the termination of her parental rights to her four children, arguing that the evidence against her was legally and factually insufficient. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the mother's history under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(E), which focuses on a parent's endangering course of conduct. The court reviewed documentary evidence—including CPS reports and criminal affidavits—detailing a 16-hour abandonment of a toddler, physical abuse, and chronic medical neglect. The court held that this persistent pattern of instability and failure to complete a court-ordered service plan constituted clear and convincing evidence to support termination. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decree, finding that termination was in the children's best interest.
Litigation Takeaway
"In termination proceedings, documentary evidence like CPS reports and criminal affidavits can be just as powerful as live testimony; if admitted without objection, these records can establish a "course of conduct" sufficient to permanently terminate parental rights even if the parent fails to appear at trial."
Capital City Security, LLC v. Pro-Vision Solutions, LLC
COA02
In this restricted appeal, Capital City Security challenged a no-answer default judgment because the plaintiff, Pro-Vision Solutions, failed to attach the mandatory Rule 185 affidavit to its suit on a sworn account. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed whether this procedural defect required reversal when the plaintiff also pleaded an alternative breach of contract claim. The court determined that because the decretal portion of the judgment did not specify a legal theory and the plaintiff had attached the underlying contracts and invoices to the petition, the claim was liquidated and supported by the alternative breach of contract theory. The court held that the judgment remained valid on the contract claim regardless of the missing affidavit, affirming the trial court's decision.
Litigation Takeaway
"Always use a 'belt and suspenders' pleading strategy by including an alternative breach of contract claim alongside specific statutory or sworn account claims. By attaching the underlying written instrument (such as an MSA or fee agreement) to your petition, you transform the debt into a liquidated claim, which can insulate a default judgment from reversal on technical grounds and eliminate the need for an evidentiary hearing on damages."
In Re Estate of Wright
COA11
In a contested probate case transferred from a Throckmorton County court to a district court, a contestant challenged the district court's subject-matter jurisdiction, alleging the transfer order was procedurally defective. The court of appeals analyzed Texas Estates Code § 32.003, which mandates transfers of contested probate matters in counties without statutory probate courts. The court held that because the transfer was mandatory and the case had actually moved, any clerical or internal inconsistencies in the transfer order were non-jurisdictional procedural defects that the contestant waived by failing to object in the trial court. Additionally, the court found that testimony stating a will was never revoked 'to the best of [the witness's] knowledge' constituted probative evidence to support admitting the will to probate.
Litigation Takeaway
"Procedural defects in a transfer order between courts are not 'jurisdictional silver bullets' and must be preserved by a timely objection in the trial court; otherwise, the complaint is waived. Furthermore, personal knowledge testimony framed as 'to the best of my knowledge' regarding the non-revocation of a document is sufficient probative evidence to support a trial court finding."
In the Matter of the Marriage of Njipwo
COA07
In a Williamson County divorce case, the husband insisted that Cameroon law govern the property division. When the trial court rejected this, the husband explicitly requested on the record to discharge his attorney and signed a handwritten withdrawal order to proceed pro se. The trial court subsequently divided the marital estate based on unsworn property spreadsheets and attorney statements. On appeal, the husband challenged both the withdrawal of his counsel and the evidentiary basis of the property division. The Amarillo Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, holding that the "invited error" doctrine precluded the husband from complaining about a withdrawal he specifically requested. Additionally, the court found that the husband waived any objection to unsworn evidence by failing to object at trial and proceeding on an agreed factual basis.
Litigation Takeaway
"Be cautious when making mid-trial demands; once you explicitly request a procedural change—such as discharging your lawyer—or fail to object to the use of unsworn property summaries, the "invited error" and waiver doctrines may permanently bar you from challenging those issues on appeal."
Pesca Holding LLC v. Skoldeberg
COA04
In Pesca Holding LLC v. Skoldeberg, a jury trial was held regarding alleged fraud in a business sale. Although the defendants prevailed on the liability claims, they failed to include a question about attorney’s fees in the jury charge. The trial court, believing an informal agreement to bifurcate the issues existed, later convened a second jury trial specifically for fees. On appeal, the San Antonio Court of Appeals analyzed whether a party waives attorney's fees by failing to submit them to the initial factfinder. The court held that because attorney’s fees are questions of fact for the jury, they are waived unless the record contains a clear and unambiguous bifurcation agreement, such as a written Rule 11 agreement. Finding no such agreement in the record, the court reversed the $800,000 fee award and rendered a take-nothing judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never rely on an informal or "handshake" agreement to handle attorney’s fees after a jury trial; if the fee question isn't in the jury charge and you don't have a signed Rule 11 agreement to bifurcate, you waive your right to fees the moment the jury is discharged."
Robert Garrison Cheshire v. The State of Texas
COA12
In a consolidated appeal from child–sexual-assault convictions, Cheshire argued the evidence was legally insufficient because both complainants had made inconsistent statements and there was recantation-related evidence in treatment notes and to third parties, and he also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and reversible error from denial of a continuance. Applying the Jackson v. Virginia legal-sufficiency standard and deferring to the jury on credibility conflicts, the Twelfth Court of Appeals held a rational jury could find the elements of aggravated sexual assault of a child beyond a reasonable doubt based on the complainants’ detailed disclosures in protocol-based forensic interviews, their in-court testimony, corroborative context including a journal discovered during treatment, and testimony explaining delayed disclosure/recantation dynamics. The court further held Cheshire failed to meet Strickland because the record did not demonstrate both deficient performance and prejudice, and it found no reversible error in the continuance ruling because he did not make a concrete, record-supported showing of specific harm from the denial. The convictions were affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Recantation and inconsistent statements rarely end the inquiry—when a case includes a structured forensic interview, detail-rich outcry evidence, corroborating context (e.g., journals/treatment disclosures), and testimony explaining delayed disclosure or recantation, courts typically treat contradictions as jury credibility issues. In family-law SAPCR/protective-order strategy, build (or attack) the “credibility mosaic”: protective parties should preserve forensic-interview and corroboration evidence and explain recantation dynamics; accused parties must go beyond impeachment and develop affirmative proof of contamination, motive, or methodological flaws, and make a detailed record for any continuance request."
In the Interest of K.B., a Child
COA12
In the Interest of K.B., the Twelfth Court of Appeals reviewed the termination of parental rights where the parents challenged the sufficiency of evidence for endangerment and the admission of hearsay statements from the child’s siblings. The court analyzed the 'excited utterance' exception, determining that the siblings' visible distress—including crying and fearful demeanor—was a sufficient foundation for admitting their statements regarding the parents' intoxication. Furthermore, the court found that driving while intoxicated with a child in the vehicle, combined with neglectful physical conditions, provided legally and factually sufficient evidence of endangerment under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1). The court held that the termination was in the child's best interest and affirmed the trial court's decree.
Litigation Takeaway
"Simply 'checking the boxes' of a service plan is insufficient for parents to avoid termination if they fail to acknowledge the underlying issues, such as substance abuse; additionally, visible physical manifestations of a child's stress can provide the necessary predicate to admit hearsay under the excited utterance exception."
In re Mark Warner
COA05
Relator Mark Warner filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate a trial court's order for sanctions and turnover. The Dallas Court of Appeals denied the petition on two procedural grounds without reaching the merits. First, the court found the relator failed to provide a properly 'sworn or certified' record because his unsworn declaration lacked the specific 'penalty of perjury' language required by Texas law. Second, the court held that because the relator was represented by counsel in the trial court, he was not permitted to file a pro se petition, as Texas law prohibits 'hybrid representation.'
Litigation Takeaway
"Procedural precision is non-negotiable in mandamus proceedings. To avoid summary denial, ensure every document in the record is authenticated with a declaration specifically invoking the 'penalty of perjury' and remember that a represented party cannot 'go rogue' by filing pro se motions or petitions while still appearing through counsel."
In re Brandon Charles Cole
COA05
Relator Brandon Charles Cole filed a petition for writ of mandamus after the trial court denied his motions to recuse in two related cases. The Dallas Court of Appeals analyzed the petition on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, the court found the Relator failed to provide a sworn or certified record of the trial court proceedings as required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3 and 52.7. Substantively, the court applied Texas Supreme Court precedent holding that a denial of a motion to recuse does not satisfy the 'no adequate remedy by appeal' requirement for mandamus relief. The court held that because the recusal issue can be raised on appeal following a final judgment, mandamus intervention is unavailable, and the petition was denied.
Litigation Takeaway
"You cannot use a mandamus petition to immediately overturn a judge's refusal to recuse themselves; instead, you must proceed to trial and reserve the issue for a standard appeal after the final decree. Furthermore, any attempt at mandamus requires a strictly certified or sworn record—procedural errors alone are sufficient for the appellate court to dismiss your petition."
Robert Garrison Cheshire v. The State of Texas
COA12
Robert Garrison Cheshire appealed his convictions for aggravated sexual assault of two children, arguing that prior denials, recantations, and other credibility conflicts rendered the evidence insufficient, that trial counsel was ineffective, and that the trial court improperly denied a continuance. Applying the Jackson v. Virginia standard, the Twelfth Court of Appeals held that credibility determinations belonged to the jury and that the complainants’ detailed forensic-interview statements and trial testimony permitted a rational jury to find every element beyond a reasonable doubt despite their inconsistent statements. The court also rejected the ineffective-assistance claim because the record did not establish deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland, and it upheld the denial of a continuance because Cheshire failed to make the required record of diligence and specific harm. The convictions were affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"A child’s recantation or inconsistent statement does not automatically defeat an abuse allegation when the factfinder credits a detailed, coherent account supported by disclosure chronology or other process evidence. Family-law attorneys should organize disclosures, denials, and corroborating evidence into a clear timeline and treat inconsistencies as credibility issues rather than dispositive proof. Counsel seeking a continuance must also document diligence, identify exactly what additional time will produce, and preserve a concrete showing of harm; unsupported requests are unlikely to justify reversal."