Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1576 opinions found
Alazzawi v. Algharrawi
COA08
In Alazzawi v. Algharrawi, a husband appealed a divorce decree and protective order, only to discover that the court reporter's stenographic files were corrupted and the Zoom recording of the trial failed to capture the audible English translations of his wife’s Arabic testimony. The Eighth Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(f), which requires a new trial if a significant portion of the record is lost through no fault of the appellant and is necessary to the appeal. Because the missing testimony was the primary evidence for the trial court’s judgment and the parties could not agree on a replacement translation, the court held that a mandatory new trial was required, reversing the original judgment and remanding the cause.
Litigation Takeaway
"Technical failures during remote hearings—especially those involving foreign language interpreters—can be fatal to a judgment; if the official English translation is not clearly recorded and the parties cannot agree on a reconstruction, a complete "do-over" of the trial is mandatory."
In re Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc.
COA09
In re Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. involved a discovery dispute where a relator sought to shield alleged trade secrets from production. The Beaumont Court of Appeals analyzed the burden-shifting framework of Texas Rule of Evidence 507 and the procedural requirements of Rule of Civil Procedure 193.3, concluding that the relator provided only general categorical descriptions of documents rather than a specific privilege log. The court held that the relator's failure to affirmatively request an in-camera inspection prevented the trial court from making a reasoned determination on the privilege, thereby rendering the petition for mandamus relief premature.
Litigation Takeaway
"To successfully protect trade secrets or proprietary business information in discovery, you must do more than simply object; you must provide a detailed privilege log and formally request an in-camera inspection. Failing to provide the trial court with the specific documents for review waives your ability to seek mandamus relief, as the appellate court cannot find an abuse of discretion without a record of the specific evidence at issue."
D. F. and W. C. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
COA03
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services sought to terminate the parental rights of a mother, who suffered from chronic methamphetamine relapse and homelessness, and a father, who was serving a life sentence in federal prison for violent racketeering and attempted murder. The trial court ordered termination, which both parents appealed. The Third Court of Appeals analyzed the mother’s 'course of conduct' under Texas Family Code Section 161.001, finding that her history of drug use and instability created an endangering environment. For the father, the court determined that his voluntary criminal acts leading to life imprisonment effectively precluded him from providing stability. Applying the Holley factors, the court held that termination was in the children’s best interest due to the parents' inability to provide for the children's emotional and physical needs compared to the stability of their current placement.
Litigation Takeaway
"Stability is the central pillar of a 'best interest' analysis; a parent’s historical 'course of conduct'—such as repeated drug relapse or long-term incarceration for violent crimes—can satisfy endangerment findings even in the absence of a single specific injury to the child. Practitioners should utilize therapeutic testimony to demonstrate the lack of a parental bond and the child's need for permanence to overcome defenses from incarcerated or addicted parents."
In re Mattr US Inc.
COA11
The Eleventh Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief, affirming a trial court's refusal to enforce a forum-selection clause and its denial of jurisdictional discovery. The case involved a Canadian entity attempting to move a dispute to Alberta based on unsigned 'Order Acknowledgments.' The court reasoned that because the documents specifically required a signature as the method of acceptance, the lack of a signature meant no agreement was formed. Furthermore, the court held that internal financial authorizations (AFEs) were not discoverable because contract formation depends on objective manifestations of intent shared between parties, not private internal budgeting documents.
Litigation Takeaway
"An unsigned contract cannot typically enforce a forum-selection clause if the document itself specifies a signature is required for acceptance. Additionally, internal financial documents and 'budgeting' data are generally shielded from discovery in contract disputes because they do not constitute objective evidence of what the parties communicated to one another."
Wilson v. State
COA03
In *Wilson v. State*, a defendant attempted to challenge a decades-old murder conviction by filing a civil "Petition for Declaratory Judgment," claiming the state breached his plea agreement. The Third Court of Appeals looked past the civil labels and analyzed the substance of the pleading, determining it was actually a collateral attack on a final judgment. The court held that because Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive remedy for post-conviction relief, the defendant could not use the Declaratory Judgment Act to bypass these requirements. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"The substance of a legal filing matters more than its title. Parties cannot use a "Declaratory Judgment" action to end-run the strict requirements for challenging a final order. If the relief sought is to void or alter a final decree, you must follow the specific statutory procedures (like a Bill of Review or an enforcement action) rather than seeking a new civil judgment."
Sherman v. Pertee
COA05
In Sherman v. Pertee, a trial court judge dismissed a breach of contract appeal on their own motion (sua sponte), reasoning that the original claim was filed after the statute of limitations had expired and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction. The Fifth Court of Appeals analyzed whether the appeal was filed on time and whether a statute of limitations defense is truly jurisdictional. The Court found that under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 4, the filing deadline was extended because December 26th is a recognized state holiday. Furthermore, the Court held that a statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant; it does not deprive a court of the power to hear a case. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, holding that the trial court erred by treating a waived limitations defense as a jurisdictional bar.
Litigation Takeaway
"A statute of limitations is a 'shield' that must be affirmatively pleaded in your answer, not a 'sword' that a judge can use to dismiss a case for you. In family law enforcement or property division disputes, failing to plead limitations means you waive that defense. Additionally, remember that in Texas state courts, December 26th is a legal holiday that can provide a critical 48-hour extension for year-end filing deadlines."
In re 7-Eleven, Inc.
COA13
In this case, a trial court failed to rule on a Rule 91a motion to dismiss "baseless claims" for several months following a hearing. The Relators sought mandamus relief to compel a ruling. The Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, noting that while its 45-day deadline for rulings is directory rather than jurisdictional, the rule's core purpose is the "early and speedy dismissal" of meritless litigation. The court found that because the motion was properly heard and the delay was objectively unreasonable, the trial court's inaction constituted an abuse of discretion. The court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to issue a ruling on the motion.
Litigation Takeaway
"Trial courts cannot use a 'pocket veto' to avoid ruling on Rule 91a motions to dismiss. If a judge refuses to rule on a motion to dismiss baseless claims within a reasonable time after a hearing, mandamus is an available tool to force a decision and prune frivolous 'tort-crossover' claims from family law litigation."
In The Interest of M.H., A Child
COA01
The First Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's decree terminating a mother's parental rights following her persistent substance abuse and failure to engage in a court-ordered service plan. The mother tested positive for cocaine and marijuana multiple times and failed to initiate her family service plan after being released from jail, claiming the appointments 'slipped her mind.' The court analyzed the evidence under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O), finding that the mother's drug use and association with a partner convicted of indecency constituted endangerment. The court held that there was legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the predicate grounds for termination and that the termination was in the child's best interest, especially as the child was thriving in a stable foster placement.
Litigation Takeaway
"A parent's failure to immediately initiate a court-ordered service plan upon release from incarceration is often fatal to their case; appellate courts rarely excuse a lack of initiative under 'Ground O,' and persistent drug use remains one of the strongest indicators of endangerment."
Hart v. San Jacinto River Authority
COA14
After a case was dismissed for want of prosecution (DWOP), the plaintiffs filed a motion to reinstate that was not verified by an affidavit as required by procedural rules. This unverified motion failed to extend the standard 30-day deadline to file an appeal. When the plaintiffs later attempted to file a 'restricted appeal'—a process usually available for six months—the appellate court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court reasoned that under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 30, filing any timely post-judgment motion (even a defective or 'improper' one) automatically disqualifies a party from seeking a restricted appeal. The court held that the unverified motion was still a 'motion' for purposes of the rule, creating a procedural trap that left the plaintiffs with no way to challenge the dismissal.
Litigation Takeaway
"An unverified motion to reinstate is a 'deadly' procedural error: it is ineffective at extending the 30-day window for a standard appeal, yet it simultaneously bars the filing of a restricted appeal. To protect your rights, always ensure a motion to reinstate is verified by personal knowledge and, if the 30-day deadline is approaching without a signed order of reinstatement, file a notice of appeal immediately to preserve the case."
Rodriguez v. Henriquez and Gutierrez
COA01
In this case, a business owner (Rodriguez) provided the funds to purchase a property but allowed his assistant (Henriquez) to take legal title in his own name. Henriquez later sold the property to third-party buyers (the Gutierrezes) for a price below its original cost. Although Rodriguez verbally warned the buyers that Henriquez was a 'con artist' who was stealing the property, the buyers proceeded with the purchase after their agent confirmed that the official deed records listed Henriquez as the sole owner. The court analyzed whether the buyers' knowledge of Rodriguez's claims disqualified them from being 'Bona Fide Purchasers' (BFPs). The court held that while the buyers had a duty to investigate the warning, verifying the public property records constituted a 'diligent inquiry.' Consequently, the buyers' status as BFPs was upheld, and Rodriguez’s equitable claim to the property was extinguished.
Litigation Takeaway
"When property is held in a third party's name—a common scenario in 'fraud on the community' cases—verbal warnings of ownership are insufficient to protect your rights. You must immediately file a lawsuit and a 'Notice of Lis Pendens' in the county records to provide legal notice to the world; otherwise, a good-faith buyer can purchase the property and leave you with no recourse other than a lawsuit against a potentially insolvent fraudster."