Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1576 opinions found
ATC Indoor DAS LLC v. MM CCM 48M Leasing, LLC and MM CCM 48M, LLC
COA05
A commercial tenant sued its landlord for breaching a long-term lease after the landlord bought a distressed shopping mall and unilaterally terminated the lease to close and redevelop the property. The landlord obtained summary judgment by asserting the affirmative defense of commercial impracticability, arguing the lease’s “basic assumption” (a functioning mall with patrons) had failed. The Dallas Court of Appeals applied Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 261 as used in Texas: impracticability requires an event that makes performance objectively impracticable, the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract, and the event must be unforeseeable. The court emphasized that impracticability is not mere unprofitability and focused on foreseeability: the landlord purchased the mall as a distressed property intending redevelopment, making closure and demolition foreseeable (and effectively self-created). Because the closure was not an unforeseeable event and did not render performance objectively impossible, the defense failed. The court reversed the summary judgment, rendered judgment that the landlord breached the lease, and remanded for determination of damages and attorney’s fees.
Litigation Takeaway
"“My business failed” or “the deal stopped making economic sense” is usually not a legal excuse to dodge a settlement or property-division obligation. To prove impracticability under Texas law, the obligor must show a truly unforeseeable event that makes performance objectively impossible—not merely financially painful or unprofitable—especially where the risk was known, foreseeable, or the hardship was the party’s own strategic choice."
Ronald Adams a/k/a Ron Adams v. Gary Upshaw
COA05
The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s refusal to dismiss a defamation lawsuit under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). The dispute arose after the president of a youth sports organization sent communications regarding the failure to conduct background checks on a sex offender, identifying the plaintiff as the organization's representative during the relevant period. The court analyzed the case under the TCPA framework, determining that child safety in sports is a "matter of public concern," which shifted the burden to the plaintiff to prove his case with "clear and specific evidence." Because the plaintiff failed to meet this heightened evidentiary threshold for all elements of defamation, the court held the suit must be dismissed and remanded the case for an award of attorney's fees to the defendant.
Litigation Takeaway
"In 'crossover' defamation suits involving child safety or parental fitness, the TCPA is a powerful defensive shield. Plaintiffs cannot rely on vague allegations; they must provide specific, high-quality evidence at the very start of the case or face mandatory dismissal and the obligation to pay the defendant’s legal fees."
Adame v. The State of Texas
COA13
The defendant was convicted of animal cruelty after admitting to squeezing and stomping a pet cockatoo that died shortly thereafter. On appeal, the defendant argued the evidence was insufficient because the State failed to provide expert medical testimony or a necropsy to prove the cause of death, and claimed his admissions were unreliable due to his intoxication. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that expert testimony is unnecessary when an injury's effects are visually obvious to a layperson. The court further determined that a jury, as the sole judge of credibility, may rely on a defendant's inculpatory admissions even if they are made while intoxicated or contain factual inaccuracies.
Litigation Takeaway
"Expert veterinary testimony and formal necropsies are not required to prove animal cruelty in cases where the injury is obvious to a layperson. Family law practitioners can use this 'evidentiary shortcut' to more efficiently establish patterns of coercive control, family violence, or 'best interest' factors using only lay testimony, photos, and the opposing party's admissions."
In Re Marisol Garza
COA13
In a contract dispute that lasted over eleven years, the defendant moved for dismissal for want of prosecution after a 46-month period of total inactivity by the plaintiff. The trial court denied the motion, but the Thirteenth Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief. The appellate court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a and the court's inherent power, determining that the burden to prosecute a case rests solely on the plaintiff. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion because the plaintiff failed to show good cause for the extensive delays, and the COVID-19 pandemic did not justify a nearly four-year lapse in activity.
Litigation Takeaway
"Don't let 'zombie' litigation linger; if an opposing party files a suit to secure temporary orders and then abandons the case for years, you can force a dismissal. The duty to move a case forward belongs entirely to the person who filed it, and even significant events like the COVID-19 pandemic do not excuse years of total inactivity."
Opinion by Justice Rivas-Molloy
COA01
A former law-firm associate sued his prior employer for post-termination wages, arguing that because he remained “attorney of record” in a pending federal case until the court signed an order allowing withdrawal, the employment relationship (and his right to salary) necessarily continued through the withdrawal date. The Houston First Court of Appeals analyzed the claim under Texas contract principles and at-will employment, distinguishing ethical/professional duties owed to a tribunal during the withdrawal process from the private contractual terms governing compensation. The court held that an attorney’s continued “of record” status does not, as a matter of law, extend an employment contract or create an entitlement to wages after the firm has clearly terminated the employment relationship; it also rejected challenges to the trial court’s evidentiary/discovery rulings and refusal to judicially notice California law as not showing reversible error. The take-nothing judgment for the firm was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Being “attorney of record” after termination creates ethical obligations, not a paycheck: firms can defeat “withdrawal gap” wage claims by documenting a clear, unequivocal termination date (access shutoff, keys/credentials returned) and promptly moving to withdraw, while employment agreements should expressly state compensation ends upon termination regardless of withdrawal timing."
The Great American Pool, L.L.C. d/b/a American Pools of Houston v. Mary J. Phenneger and Joedy Phenneger
COA01
In a dispute that the trial court sent to arbitration, The Great American Pool, L.L.C. attempted to appeal the trial court’s order granting Mary and Joedy Phenneger’s motion to compel arbitration. The First Court of Appeals analyzed its subject-matter jurisdiction, reiterating that Texas appellate courts generally may review only final judgments unless a statute expressly authorizes interlocutory review. Because an order compelling arbitration does not dispose of all parties and claims—it merely changes the forum and typically stays the case—and because the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides interlocutory appeal rights for orders denying arbitration (but not for orders granting arbitration), the court held the order was an unappealable interlocutory order. Lacking statutory authorization for interlocutory review, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction (granting appellant’s requested dismissal).
Litigation Takeaway
"Treat a hearing on a motion to compel arbitration as make-or-break: if the court compels arbitration, you usually cannot take an immediate interlocutory appeal. To challenge an erroneous order compelling arbitration, be prepared to pursue mandamus (and build a record), or you may be forced to arbitrate to the end before any ordinary appeal is possible."
Owens v. Johnson
COA01
In Owens v. Johnson, a military service member sought to reduce his child support payments, claiming his income had decreased due to changes in his service status and a significant increase in insurance costs. Despite his testimony, he failed to provide official financial documentation, such as Leave and Earnings Statements (LES), to support his claims. The trial court chose to credit the mother's testimony and disbelieve the father's uncorroborated assertions, setting a higher support amount and confirming child support arrears. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, emphasizing that trial judges are the sole judges of witness credibility and that a party's self-serving testimony can be disregarded if it lacks objective corroboration.
Litigation Takeaway
"When seeking to modify child support, testimony is not a substitute for a paper trail. If you claim a decrease in income but fail to produce readily available financial records like pay stubs or tax returns, the court has the discretion to completely disregard your testimony and maintain your current support obligations."
AOC TX, LLC d/b/a Angels of Care Pediatric Home Health v. Naomi Landeros and Carlos Silva, Individually and as Next Friend of O.S., Deceased Minor
COA08
In this medical liability case involving the tragic death of a medically fragile infant, the parents sued a home health provider. The defendant challenged the qualifications of the parents' nurse and physician experts, arguing they were not 'practicing' at the time required by law. The El Paso Court of Appeals strictly interpreted Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 74.402, finding that because the nurse had not practiced since 2021 and the doctor retired in 2019—while the claim arose in 2023—they failed the mandatory temporal requirements for experts. The court held the trial court abused its discretion in accepting the reports and reversed the ruling, though it remanded the case to allow the parents an opportunity to cure the technical deficiencies.
Litigation Takeaway
"Expert experience alone is insufficient if it is not contemporaneous with the case; to survive a motion to strike, an expert must be in active clinical practice or teaching at an accredited institution at the time the claim arose or when testimony is given. In family law cases involving medically fragile children or specialized needs, practitioners must scrutinize the 'active' status of experts to ensure their testimony is not disqualified for being out-of-date."
AHMED OLAYIWOLA, Appellant V. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL LLC D/B/A LA FITNESS; FITNESS INTERNATIONAL GP, LLC; L.A. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL TEXAS, L.P.; AND “L.A. FITNESS”
COA14
After appealing a trial court's dismissal of his claims, Ahmed Olayiwola filed a voluntary nonsuit of all underlying claims against all parties while the appeal was pending. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals examined whether the appeal could continue despite the absence of a live controversy at the trial level. Relying on the principle that appellate courts lack jurisdiction over moot disputes, the court determined that the nonsuit effectively extinguished the controversy. The court held that because there was no longer a justiciable issue for the court to resolve or a judgment that would have any practical legal effect, the appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction under Rule 42.3(a).
Litigation Takeaway
"A voluntary nonsuit in the trial court acts as a 'tactical reset' that moots a pending appeal; this allows a party to effectively 'vacuum' the appellate court's jurisdiction to avoid an unfavorable precedent or a poorly developed record, provided the opposing party has not filed a counterclaim for affirmative relief."
In Re Michael Wayne Lowman
COA09
After being found in contempt for failing to sign property listing documents required by a divorce decree, Michael Lowman was sentenced to 180 days in jail. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of his confinement. However, by the time the Ninth Court of Appeals reviewed the case, Lowman had fully served his sentence and been released. The court analyzed the case under the mootness doctrine, noting that a writ of habeas corpus is a tool used specifically to challenge an existing restraint on liberty. Because Lowman was no longer confined, the court held that there was no longer a live controversy to resolve and dismissed the petition as moot.
Litigation Takeaway
"Habeas corpus is a race against the clock: if a client is jailed for contempt, you must immediately seek an emergency stay or a personal recognizance bond. If the client serves the full sentence before the appellate court rules, the case becomes moot, and you lose the chance to vacate a potentially void contempt order."