Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1576 opinions found
City of Houston v. Castillo
COA14
After a motor-vehicle collision involving a City of Houston employee, the plaintiff sued under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). The City filed a Rule 91a motion to dismiss, arguing the plaintiff failed to negate the 'emergency' exception to the waiver of immunity and that the plaintiff judicially admitted the officer's immunity. While the City's interlocutory appeal was pending, the trial court issued a discovery order. The Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff is not required to preemptively negate TTCA exceptions unless their own pleadings plausibly implicate those exceptions. Crucially, the court also determined that a Rule 91a motion challenging immunity is a jurisdictional challenge that triggers an automatic statutory stay of all trial court proceedings under Section 51.014(b). The court affirmed the denial of the dismissal but granted mandamus relief to vacate the discovery order entered during the stay.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a governmental unit appeals the denial of a Rule 91a motion based on immunity, it triggers an automatic stay of all trial court proceedings under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(b). Any orders signed during this stay, such as discovery or scheduling orders, are subject to vacatur via mandamus. Additionally, when suing a governmental entity, avoid pleading facts that suggest an emergency or 911 response unless you are prepared to affirmatively negate those specific immunity exceptions in your petition."
In the Interest of B.C., a Child
COA02
A Mother sought to modify a residency restriction to move her child, who has severe autism and is nonverbal, from Texas to Florida to access specialized therapeutic and educational resources. The Father opposed the move and sought to further restrict the residency area. The trial court expanded the residency restriction to the continental United States, ordering the Mother to reimburse certain travel costs for the Father. The appellate court analyzed the case under the Lenz v. Lenz factors, noting that the child's specific medical needs, the Father's own relocation outside the restricted area, and his history of inconsistent visitation supported the move. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, as the expansion was in the child's best interest.
Litigation Takeaway
"In relocation cases involving special needs children, Texas courts may prioritize "resource disparity" over geographical proximity; practitioners should be aware that a non-custodial parent's own relocation can significantly weaken their ability to enforce or maintain local residency restrictions."
In re Scott Mitchell Obeginski
COA09
In this mandamus proceeding, a litigant challenged a trial court sanction imposed after he repeatedly cited fictional legal authorities. The sanction required him to attach highlighted copies of all cited authorities to any future filings in any court. The Beaumont Court of Appeals analyzed the order under the TransAmerican 'just sanctions' framework, which requires that sanctions bear a direct relationship to the abuse and not be excessive. The court held that the trial court did not exceed its jurisdiction or unconstitutionally restrict court access because the requirement was a targeted verification mechanism directly related to the litigant's history of citation fraud. Mandamus relief was denied.
Litigation Takeaway
"Citing fictional or 'AI-hallucinated' cases is a fast track to a 'prove-your-citations' sanction. Courts can require you to attach and highlight every cited authority in future filings as a narrowly tailored remedy that survives constitutional 'access to courts' challenges."
Davis v. State
COA09
In Davis v. State, a defendant challenged the warrantless seizure of his cell phone during a child sexual assault investigation, arguing the evidence obtained from a subsequent search warrant should be suppressed. The Ninth Court of Appeals analyzed the seizure under the Fourth Amendment's exigent circumstances exception, which allows warrantless action to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. The court found that because the defendant admitted to using the phone to communicate with the victim and had already deleted messages and blocked her, officers had both probable cause and a reasonable belief that evidence faced immediate destruction. The court held the warrantless seizure was permissible to preserve the status quo until a warrant could be obtained, affirming the denial of the motion to suppress.
Litigation Takeaway
"To secure immediate preservation of digital evidence in family violence or abuse cases, litigators should build a record of specific "deletion risk"—such as prior deletions or admissions of blocking contacts—to justify emergency relief or turnover orders under an exigent circumstances framework."
In Re Sufian Khalaf
COA04
In a commercial motor vehicle accident case, an individual driver-defendant sought mandatory bifurcation of compensatory and exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 72.052. The plaintiff argued the statutory right to bifurcation applied only to employer-entities, a position the trial court adopted in denying the motion. On mandamus review, the San Antonio Court of Appeals analyzed the plain language of the statute, noting the mandatory directive 'shall' and the broad definition of 'a defendant' which includes vehicle operators. The court held that trial courts have no discretion to deny a timely bifurcation motion filed by an individual driver and granted mandamus relief to prevent the prejudice of 'tainted' jury deliberations.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family law cases involving interspousal torts or joined third-party claims, attorneys should move for mandatory bifurcation of punitive damages to prevent inflammatory 'bad act' evidence from unfairly influencing the jury's perception of the 'just and right' division of the community estate."
In the Interest of J.M., a Child
COA12
After the Department of Family and Protective Services filed a petition to terminate a mother's parental rights due to substance abuse and family violence, the parties executed a statutory Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) appointing the mother as a possessory conservator. Despite the agreement, the mother appealed the final order. The Twelfth Court of Appeals performed an independent review of the record and found the appeal frivolous under Anders v. California. The court held that because the MSA complied with Texas Family Code § 153.0071—including the required non-revocation language and voluntary signatures—it was binding on the trial court. While the court affirmed the judgment, it denied appointed counsel's motion to withdraw, clarifying that the right to counsel in government-initiated suits persists through the exhaustion of proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court.
Litigation Takeaway
"A statutory Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) is nearly unassailable on appeal if it contains the proper non-revocation language and is signed by all parties; furthermore, appointed counsel in CPS cases must remain on the case through the Texas Supreme Court level even if they believe the appeal is frivolous."
Salinas v. Tovar
COA13
In a civil suit alleging invasion of privacy, a defendant challenged a trial court's temporary injunction that compelled him to turn over his cell phone and iCloud data to a court-appointed forensic examiner. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed whether this compelled production violated the Fifth Amendment's act-of-production doctrine. The court reasoned that by forcing the defendant to produce the specific device used on the date of the alleged incident, the act would implicitly communicate and authenticate the device's existence, the defendant's possession of it, and its link to the allegations. The court held that the turnover requirement constituted a testimonial communication protected by the privilege against self-incrimination and reversed that portion of the trial court's order.
Litigation Takeaway
"Compelling a party to produce a specific digital device for forensic imaging may violate the Fifth Amendment act-of-production privilege because the act of production itself can be an incriminating testimonial communication regarding the device's existence, possession, and authenticity."
F.M.H. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
COA03
In this case, a mother appealed the termination of her parental rights to her two children after she failed to complete any court-ordered rehabilitation services, including drug testing and domestic violence classes. The Third Court of Appeals analyzed the record after her appointed counsel filed an Anders brief, which argued that the appeal was frivolous. The court reviewed the mother's history of neglectful supervision, crack cocaine use, and sporadic contact with her children against the evidence that the children were thriving in stable, prospective adoptive homes. Ultimately, the court held that the mother's total failure to engage in her service plan and the children's best interests justified the termination of her parental rights.
Litigation Takeaway
"A parent's total failure to participate in court-ordered services and drug testing creates a nearly insurmountable hurdle on appeal, as the court will likely find no arguable grounds to reverse a termination when the children have achieved stability elsewhere."
Sebastian Linke v. Kyle Folmer
COA04
In Sebastian Linke v. Kyle Folmer, the San Antonio Court of Appeals addressed whether a judgment is final for appeal purposes when it expressly reserves a ruling on a prevailing party’s attorney’s fees. Despite the judgment containing boilerplate language stating it was 'final and appealable,' the court analyzed the record under the Lehmann and Sealy Emergency Room standards. It determined that because the prevailing party had a mandatory contractual claim for fees that the trial court explicitly deferred for a later hearing, the judgment did not actually dispose of all claims. Consequently, the court held that the judgment was not final and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never rely on 'final and appealable' boilerplate language if the trial court has reserved a ruling on mandatory attorney's fees. To avoid a jurisdictional trap or a dismissed appeal, ensure the final decree expressly grants, denies, or severs all pending fee claims."
Lomerson v. Lyle Reid & Associates, L.L.C.
COA07
In a property damage dispute involving complex water drainage issues, the plaintiff failed to timely designate expert witnesses required to prove causation. The defendants moved for a no-evidence summary judgment, arguing that without admissible expert testimony, the plaintiff could not meet his burden of proof. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6, which mandates the automatic exclusion of untimely evidence unless the proponent establishes 'good cause' or a 'lack of unfair surprise or prejudice.' The court held that the plaintiff's claim of 'mistake' or counsel inadvertence did not satisfy these exceptions. Because expert testimony was necessary for the technical issue of causation, the court affirmed the summary judgment, effectively dismissing the case.
Litigation Takeaway
"Missing an expert designation deadline is more than a discovery hiccup—it is a potential case-killer. Under TRCP 193.6, late-filed experts are automatically excluded from consideration at the summary judgment stage unless you can prove a specific legal exception. In family law matters involving business valuations, property tracing, or custody evaluations, failing to adhere to the scheduling order can result in a 'no-evidence' judgment that ends your claim before trial."