Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1576 opinions found
Lamar Advantage Outdoor Co., L.P. v. LaCore Enterprises, LLC, et al.
COA05
A billboard lessee (Lamar) sued a property owner and a third-party purchaser for breach of contract and conversion after the owner sold the property without providing a contractually mandated 'desire to sell' notice. This notice was a condition precedent to the lessee's 30-day window to exercise an option for a perpetual easement. The Dallas Court of Appeals analyzed the lease's plain language and determined that because the lessor failed to provide the required notice, the lessee's exercise window never expired. The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment, holding that genuine issues of material fact regarding the breach and the lessee's right to possession precluded judgment as a matter of law.
Litigation Takeaway
"In complex property divisions, practitioners must perform exhaustive due diligence for 'poison pill' clauses like rights of first refusal or purchase options; a failure to provide mandated notice to third-party lessees during a post-divorce sale or transfer can lead to litigation that clouds the title and strips the community asset of its value."
F.M.H. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
COA03
This case involved an appeal by a mother whose parental rights were terminated following a bench trial she failed to attend. The Department of Family and Protective Services sought termination based on neglectful supervision, drug use, and the mother's failure to engage in any court-ordered services, such as therapy and drug testing. After the trial court terminated her rights, her court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal was frivolous. The Third Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record, evaluating the evidence under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b) regarding endangerment and constructive abandonment. The court found that the mother's total lack of participation in services and the children's successful placement in stable, prospective adoptive homes provided legally and factually sufficient evidence for termination. The court held that no arguable grounds for appeal existed and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"A parent’s total failure to engage in court-ordered services and absence from trial creates an evidentiary record that is nearly impossible to challenge on appeal. For practitioners, meticulously documenting "referral fatigue"—the repeated offering and subsequent rejection of rehabilitative resources—and treating missed drug tests as evidence of endangerment are critical steps to ensuring a termination decree survives an Anders review and provides permanency for the children."
Thomas v. State
COA04
In Thomas v. State, a defendant challenged his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove 'penetration' because the complainant denied full vaginal entry and used the phrase 'tried to penetrate.' The Fourth Court of Appeals analyzed the Penal Code and established case law, determining that penetration does not require full entry; rather, any contact more intrusive than the outer vaginal lips is sufficient. The court found that the complainant's testimony regarding 'pushing in' and sustained inward pressure for ten to twenty minutes allowed a rational jury to infer penetration. Additionally, the court addressed a dispute over jury readbacks, holding that trial courts have broad discretion under Article 36.28 to provide only the specific testimony in dispute rather than a comprehensive replay. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence legally sufficient and no abuse of discretion in the trial court's limited readback.
Litigation Takeaway
"Legal 'penetration' in sexual abuse allegations—whether in a criminal trial or a family law SAPCR—does not require full entry; evidence of any intrusion beyond the outer labia, such as sustained inward pressure or 'pushing in,' is sufficient to support a finding of abuse. When dealing with jury readbacks or selective quoting of the record, attorneys must make specific objections that match their appellate theories to avoid preservation traps."
Antonio Munoz Aserradero, LLC v. Thomas
COA12
In Antonio Munoz Aserradero, LLC v. Thomas, a worker was injured during a 'try-out' day at a sawmill. The employer sought to dismiss the worker's negligence lawsuit, arguing that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy applied because the worker was an 'employee' as a matter of law, pointing to a generated pay stub and the payment of medical benefits. The Tyler Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's refusal to grant a directed verdict for the employer. The court reasoned that 'employee' status requires a 'contract of hire' based on mutual assent and a promise of payment. Because testimony suggested the parties were only testing the arrangement and would 'talk about employment' later, there was a genuine dispute for the jury to decide whether a contract actually existed at the time of the injury.
Litigation Takeaway
"Employment status is determined by the fundamentals of contract formation—offer, acceptance, and a clear agreement on pay—rather than just payroll records or insurance payments. In family law disputes over income or earning capacity, you can challenge a spouse's claimed 'employment' (or lack thereof) by looking past administrative labels to see if a valid 'contract of hire' was ever actually formed."
Salinas v. Tovar
COA13
In Salinas v. Tovar, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court could compel a defendant to produce his cell phone and iCloud data for forensic examination in an invasion of privacy suit involving allegations of illegal recording. The court analyzed the "act of production" doctrine under the Fifth Amendment, which provides that the physical act of handing over a device is a testimonial communication that confirms the device's existence and the party's control over it. Because the defendant faced potential criminal liability, and the plaintiff failed to prove that his possession of the phone was a "foregone conclusion," the court held that the order compelling production violated the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. The court distinguished between permissible orders to preserve evidence and unconstitutional orders to affirmatively produce it.
Litigation Takeaway
"The Fifth Amendment's "act of production" doctrine can shield cell phones and digital devices from forensic discovery in civil cases if the act of turning them over confirms the party's possession of potentially incriminating evidence. To successfully compel production, a litigator must establish the device's existence and the opponent's possession through independent evidence—such as service provider records—to satisfy the "foregone conclusion" exception."
Strickland v. State
COA07
In Strickland v. State, a trial court attempted to stack a defendant's sentences by 'judicially noticing' prior convictions from a different term of court. The Seventh Court of Appeals held that judicial notice cannot be used as a shortcut to prove matters outside the operative record or term of court. Instead, the proponent must introduce competent evidence and establish a link between the party and the records. Although the trial court erred in its method, the appellate court affirmed the sentence because the State introduced the actual judgments containing matching identifiers (such as SID and Social Security numbers), which provided sufficient proof of the prior convictions.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not rely on a judge 'knowing the file' or taking judicial notice of records from other cases or prior terms; to survive appeal, you must formally introduce certified records and provide specific testimony or identifiers that link those documents to the party."
King v. State
COA06
In King v. State, a father was convicted of knowingly causing serious bodily injury to his 28-month-old child by omission after failing to provide food or water for over 15 hours, resulting in severe dehydration and malnutrition. On appeal, King challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence regarding his mental state. The Texarkana Court of Appeals analyzed the case using the 'cumulative force' doctrine for circumstantial evidence, looking at the child's confinement, the father's exclusive control, and the obviousness of the child's physical deterioration. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that a rational jury could infer the defendant acted 'knowingly' because he was aware his failure to provide basic necessities was reasonably certain to cause serious bodily injury.
Litigation Takeaway
"In neglect-based family law litigation, you can prove a parent's 'knowing' endangerment without a confession by building a narrative around exclusive control, a documented timeline of deprivation, and the objective, observable physical decline of the child."
In Re Michelle Chase
COA05
In a Dallas County Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR), Michelle Chase challenged the trial court's jurisdiction. After her plea was denied, she sought a writ of mandamus from the Fifth Court of Appeals to compel a dismissal. The appellate court denied the request, finding that Chase failed to meet the high 'Prudential' standard: proving a clear abuse of discretion and showing that a regular appeal would not provide an adequate remedy. Additionally, the court struck her petition and record because they contained unredacted sensitive information—including Social Security numbers and children's names—violating Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9.
Litigation Takeaway
"Seeking emergency mandamus relief for jurisdictional disputes is an uphill battle that rarely bypasses the standard appeal process; more importantly, a failure to strictly redact a child's sensitive information can result in the court striking your filings and delaying your case."
Protection of Sarah K. Wallis v. Alexis M. Etheridge
COA12
After Sarah Wallis applied for a protective order against Alexis Etheridge, the trial court denied the application but ordered Wallis—the unsuccessful petitioner—to pay $1,110 in attorney's fees to Etheridge’s counsel. Wallis appealed both the denial and the fee award. The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the protective order because Wallis failed to file a reporter's record, forcing the court to presume the evidence supported the trial court’s ruling. However, the court reversed the attorney’s fee award, ruling that Texas Family Code § 81.005 only authorizes fees against a party found to have committed family violence. Since there was no finding that Wallis committed violence, the trial court abused its discretion by shifting the fee burden to her.
Litigation Takeaway
"Prevailing as a respondent in a protective order case does not automatically trigger a right to attorney's fees. Under the Texas Family Code, fees are generally reserved for 'bad actors' found to have committed family violence; otherwise, a respondent must successfully pursue formal sanctions for groundless or bad-faith filings to recover their legal costs."
Howard v. Kimball
COA07
In Howard v. Kimball, the Seventh Court of Appeals addressed an "accidental finality" trap where a trial court order both denied a plea to the jurisdiction and included language stating the suit was "dismissed." To resolve this ambiguity, the appellate court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 27.2, abating the appeal and remanding the case to the trial court for clarification. Under the Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. standard, the court analyzed whether the order clearly and unequivocally disposed of all parties and claims. Once the trial court issued amended orders explicitly stating the case would "continue to trial," the appellate court held that the order was interlocutory and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"To avoid "accidental finality" caused by clerical or drafting errors, always include explicit language in non-final orders stating that the matter remains on the active docket and "shall continue to trial." If you encounter an ambiguous order that inadvertently triggers an appeal, use a TRAP 27.2 abatement as a procedural tool to secure a trial court clarification and return the case to the active docket."