Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1576 opinions found
Camden Design Group, Inc. v. Dialyspa Management Services, Inc.
COA01
In this case, a plaintiff sued for breach of a settlement agreement because the defendant paid via a standard check rather than 'good funds' and missed a technical waiver deadline. Although the plaintiff eventually received all the money owed, they continued the lawsuit to seek additional damages and attorney's fees. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Texas contract law, concluding that a 'technical breach' is not actionable unless the plaintiff can prove actual financial loss (pecuniary damage). Additionally, because the plaintiff’s initial demand for payment asked for a significantly higher 'new settlement' rather than the specific amount owed, the court applied the 'excessive demand doctrine' to deny the plaintiff's request for attorney's fees. The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant, essentially ruling 'no harm, no foul.'
Litigation Takeaway
"You cannot successfully sue for a technical breach of a settlement agreement (like a late payment or the wrong form of payment) if you eventually receive the money and suffer no actual financial harm. Moreover, be precise in your demand letters: asking for more than what is strictly owed under the agreement can 'weaponize' the excessive demand doctrine against you, causing you to lose your right to recover attorney's fees."
Ellis v. State
COA14
Timothy Ray Ellis was convicted of felony murder following the death of his girlfriend’s intellectually disabled son, who was subjected to extreme isolation, malnutrition, and unauthorized physical restraint. On appeal, the court analyzed whether Ellis’s actions—including padlocking the refrigerator and performing makeshift surgery—constituted 'acts clearly dangerous to human life' during the commission of the felony of injury to a disabled individual. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the systematic neglect and physical dominion Ellis exercised were legally sufficient to support the murder charge and that technical errors in the jury instructions did not constitute egregious harm.
Litigation Takeaway
"'Coercive control'—evidenced by isolation, food restriction, and psychological dominance—is a recognized pattern of family violence that can be used to rebut custody presumptions and secure protective orders, even when physical assault is not the primary factor."
In re P.W.
COA02
A seventeen-year-old mother signed an affidavit of voluntary relinquishment of her parental rights that included an express waiver of service under Texas Family Code § 161.103. After her rights were terminated, she appealed, arguing the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction because, as a minor, she lacked the legal capacity to waive service of process. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals analyzed the conflict between the general common law rule prohibiting minors from waiving service and the specific provisions of the Texas Family Code. The court held that § 161.103 creates a specific statutory exception to the general disability of minority, meaning a minor parent's voluntary relinquishment affidavit containing a waiver of citation is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction without formal service.
Litigation Takeaway
"Texas Family Code § 161.103 serves as a statutory override to the common law rule that minors cannot waive service; a properly executed relinquishment affidavit from a minor parent is sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction and protect a termination judgment from collateral attacks based on lack of service."
Hickerson v. State
COA14
In Hickerson v. State, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was violated by the admission of a deceased victim's prior out-of-court statements. The court applied the "forfeiture by wrongdoing" doctrine, which provides an equitable exception to the Confrontation Clause when a defendant intentionally procures a witness's unavailability to prevent their testimony. Finding that Hickerson murdered his girlfriend to silence her regarding pending domestic violence charges, the court held that he waived his right to object to the admission of her prior statements, including her protective order application and police reports.
Litigation Takeaway
"A party who uses intimidation, threats, or violence to prevent a witness from testifying cannot later use the Confrontation Clause or hearsay rules to exclude that witness's prior statements. In family law cases involving domestic violence, this doctrine allows for the admission of critical evidence—such as prior affidavits, police reports, and protective order applications—even when the victim is too intimidated or otherwise unavailable to testify at trial."
Pullen v. Pullen
COA02
In Pullen v. Pullen, the parties reached a partial settlement regarding their property division while an appeal of their divorce decree was pending. They filed an unopposed motion under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2)(B) requesting that the appellate court set aside only the property division and remand it for a new division consistent with their agreement. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed its authority to perform a 'surgical remand,' noting that while trial courts cannot sever a divorce from the property division, appellate courts have the discretion to affirm the divorce and SAPCR (child-related) orders while remanding the marital estate if the divorce itself is not challenged. The court held that the property division was set aside without regard to the merits and remanded to the trial court, while the portions of the decree granting the divorce and establishing custody and support were affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Parties who reach a property settlement during an appeal can utilize Rule 42.1(a)(2)(B) to remand only the financial disputes to the trial court. This 'surgical remand' allows you to finalize a settlement agreement without risking the finality of the divorce itself or disturbing favorable custody and support orders."
Carlos v. State
COA07
Jayden Louis Carlos challenged the revocation of his community supervision for reckless bodily injury to a child and assault by impeding breath, arguing that the same violations had already been addressed through an administrative modification requiring him to complete an Intermediate Sanction Facility program. The Amarillo Court of Appeals distinguished an administrative modification from a formal adjudication following a motion and evidentiary hearing. Because community-supervision proceedings are remedial rather than punitive, and the earlier modification was neither punishment for double-jeopardy purposes nor a final disposition of the violations, the trial court could rely on the same conduct in a later revocation proceeding. The court also held that Carlos failed to preserve his due-process complaints and that, even if preserved, they lacked merit because no prior formal hearing or disposition had occurred. The court affirmed the adjudication and revocation.
Litigation Takeaway
"An administrative probation sanction does not necessarily put family-violence or child-injury conduct in the past. If no formal revocation hearing and disposition occurred, the State may later seek revocation based on the same violations. In custody and possession litigation, counsel should obtain the complete community-supervision file because administrative modifications may document dangerous conduct and show that a parent still faces incarceration, undermining claims of stability."
Cotton v. Smith
COA13
In Cotton v. Smith, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals addressed the jurisdictional requirements for a permissive interlocutory appeal. The Appellants sought to challenge rulings on corporate standing and notice requirements before the final judgment. Although the trial court signed an order intended to allow the appeal, the order merely recited statutory boilerplate language without identifying the specific 'controlling question of law' or explaining how an immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation. The appellate court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 168 and Section 51.014(d) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, concluding that these procedural requirements are mandatory and jurisdictional. Because the trial court's order failed to define the legal issues or provide a substantive ruling on them, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"When seeking a permissive interlocutory appeal, you cannot rely on 'boilerplate' language in a trial court's order. To avoid a jurisdictional dismissal, the order must explicitly state the specific legal question at issue, provide a substantive ruling on that question, and detail exactly how an early appeal will save time or litigation costs. A poorly drafted order is a 'death warrant' for your appeal."
In the Matter of D. L. A.
COA01
In this juvenile delinquency matter, D.L.A. challenged a robbery adjudication, arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient to identify him as the perpetrator due to inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the case under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required by the Texas Family Code and Jackson v. Virginia, noting that the testimony of even a single eyewitness is legally sufficient to support a conviction. The court held that because the victims provided positive identifications and were corroborated by circumstantial evidence—specifically, D.L.A. being apprehended in a stolen vehicle containing the distinctive clothing and weapon described by the victims—the evidence was legally sufficient to support the trial court's finding of delinquent conduct.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas juvenile proceedings, the testimony of a single credible eyewitness is legally sufficient to sustain an adjudication; practitioners must focus on undermining identification reliability at the trial level because appellate courts will not re-weigh witness credibility or resolve evidentiary conflicts on appeal."
In the Interest of N.L.
COA09
After a trial court terminated a mother's parental rights based on findings of endangerment and failure to complete a service plan, her court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief stating the appeal lacked merit. The Ninth Court of Appeals conducted an independent, de novo review of the record to ensure the trial court's findings under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b) were supported by clear and convincing evidence. The court concluded that the evidence regarding the statutory predicates and the child's best interest was sufficient and affirmed the termination order, finding no arguable grounds for appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"Building a trial record with 'clean' evidence—particularly regarding statutory endangerment grounds—makes a termination order significantly more difficult to overturn. The Anders protocol provides a mechanism for the finality of these orders when a thorough appellate review confirms that no reversible error occurred at the trial level."
In re Eandre Juwon Mott
COA09
In this parentage action, an incarcerated relator sought a writ of mandamus to compel a Jefferson County trial court to hold a hearing on a petition filed five years earlier. The Ninth Court of Appeals denied the petition, finding that the relator failed to provide a proper record or proof of service on the child's mother. The court analyzed the case under the high standards for mandamus relief, concluding that because the relator could not prove the case was "at issue" or that he had diligently pursued a setting, the trial court had no ministerial duty to act.
Litigation Takeaway
"Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that requires more than just showing a case has been pending for a long time; you must provide a complete record proving that all parties have been served and that you have made recent, diligent efforts to secure a hearing."