Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1544 opinions found
Paige Lindsey Marlow v. Christopher Clayton Cooley
COA14
In a bifurcated family-law case, the trial court tried only the threshold issue of whether Paige Marlow and Christopher Cooley had an informal marriage and signed an order finding no marriage existed. Marlow appealed, but the court of appeals held it lacked jurisdiction because the order resolved only that single issue while SAPCR, child-support, and property matters remained pending. Applying Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. and the one-final-judgment rule, the court concluded the order was not final because it did not dispose of all claims and parties and did not clearly state that it did so. The court also found no statute authorizing interlocutory appeal of this type of order, so it dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"A bifurcated ruling on informal marriage is usually not immediately appealable if any SAPCR, support, fee, or property issues remain. Before filing a notice of appeal, family-law counsel should perform a finality audit and consider severance—not just bifurcation—if the goal is to create an appealable judgment."
In re Frank Morales
COA08
In this original mandamus proceeding, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that the trial court improperly continued ex parte TRO relief that barred a father’s possession of his children. The mother obtained an ex parte TRO based on an unsigned, unnotarized document labeled as an affidavit, and the court later signed another extended TRO months later. The court analyzed Rule 680, Rule 687, and Family Code § 105.001(c)(3), concluding that ex parte TROs must be supported by a verified pleading or valid affidavit, must expire within 14 days, and may be extended only once for a like period absent consent. Because the supporting document was not a valid affidavit and the second extension exceeded Rule 680’s strict time limits, the TRO relief was void. The court conditionally granted mandamus and directed the trial court to vacate the noncompliant TRO.
Litigation Takeaway
"Emergency family-law TROs are strictly rule-bound: if you want ex parte relief affecting possession, you need a properly verified record, a valid affidavit, a prompt injunction hearing, and a TRO that expires on time. Courts cannot keep possession restrictions alive through rollover extensions or 'until further order' language, and a parent restrained by a void TRO has a strong basis for mandamus relief."
Hayes v. State
COA14
In Hayes v. State, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that a constitutional complaint that the trial judge was biased or partial may be raised for the first time on appeal, even without a contemporaneous objection in the trial court. Using the Marin framework and relying on Proenza, Grado, and Tates, the court reasoned that the right to an impartial judge is at least a category-two right because requiring a party to accuse the presiding judge of bias during trial is often unrealistic and can undermine confidence in the proceeding. On the merits, however, the court found the record did not show the extreme favoritism or antagonism required by due process under Liteky, Brumit, and related cases. Because adverse rulings and ordinary courtroom management did not establish disqualifying bias, the conviction was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"If the complaint is that the judge’s own conduct showed unconstitutional bias, Texas appellate courts may still review that issue even without a trial objection—but winning on the merits requires a record showing far more than adverse rulings, impatience, or stern courtroom management. In family cases, preserve all ordinary trial errors as usual, but recognize that a true impartial-judge complaint may remain available on appeal as a separate due-process issue."
In the Matter of the Marriage of Daniel Maurice Murillo and Lindsey Marie Murillo
COA08
In a post-divorce procedural dispute, the husband tried to separately appeal an order denying his motion to seal records by relying on Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a, which generally treats sealing orders as severed and immediately appealable. The El Paso Court of Appeals first examined whether Rule 76a applied at all and held that it did not, because Rule 76a expressly excludes documents filed in actions originally arising under the Family Code from its definition of "court records." Since the underlying case was a divorce, the sealing order remained part of the same family-law case rather than becoming a separate final judgment. The court therefore held that any challenge to the sealing ruling had to proceed within the existing divorce appeal, and it administratively dismissed the second appeal and directed that the filings be placed in the original appellate cause.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas family-law cases, do not assume Rule 76a gives you a separate, immediate appeal from an order about sealing records. If the case arises under the Family Code, Rule 76a likely does not apply, so confidentiality issues must be preserved and pursued within the existing family-law case or appeal using the correct procedural vehicle."
In re Attune Insurance Services, LLC, TWFG Insurance Services, LLC, and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.
COA13
In this mandamus proceeding, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that the trial court improperly consolidated, less than thirty days before trial, a debt-collection suit with a separate insurance coverage and bad-faith suit. Although both disputes stemmed from the same fire, the court emphasized that Rule 174 requires more than a shared background event: the cases involved different contracts, different primary parties, different causes of action, and materially different proof. Because the late consolidation threatened prejudice in trial preparation, presentation, and jury comprehension that could not be adequately cured on appeal, the court conditionally granted mandamus and directed the trial court to vacate the consolidation order.
Litigation Takeaway
"A shared factual backdrop does not justify consolidation when the suits turn on different legal duties, documents, parties, and evidence. And if a trial court orders consolidation on the eve of trial in a way that disrupts preparation and creates unfair prejudice, mandamus may be the right remedy rather than waiting for appeal."
In re Institute in Basic Life Principles, Inc.
COA06
In this original mandamus proceeding, the Texarkana Court of Appeals held that a trial court abused its discretion by compelling responses to facially overbroad discovery requests in a civil sexual-abuse suit against IBLP. The requests swept across broad subjects—including religious publications, political-campaign policies, and organization-wide financial records—over expansive time periods untethered to the pleaded claims. Applying settled Texas discovery law, the court emphasized that discovery must be reasonably tailored to the claims and defenses and that mandamus is appropriate because disclosure of sensitive information cannot be undone on appeal. The court conditionally granted mandamus and ordered the trial court to vacate its blanket order compelling discovery, resolving the case on overbreadth grounds without reaching the relator’s constitutional objections.
Litigation Takeaway
"Even in hard-fought cases, discovery is not limitless. If a trial court compels broad requests that are not narrowly tied to the live issues by time, subject matter, or scope—especially for sensitive records—mandamus may be the best remedy because the harm from disclosure often cannot be fixed later."
Eric Robert Kendrick v. The State of Texas
COA06
In this criminal appeal, the defendant argued his lawyer was ineffective for not objecting to extraneous-offense testimony from the complainant’s adult sister. The court applied Strickland and held that, on a silent record, it could not find deficient performance because counsel’s reasons were undeveloped and several reasonable strategies were apparent, including a belief that the evidence was admissible under Article 38.371, Rule 404(b), or would survive Rule 403 balancing. Because the record supported plausible strategic reasons for not objecting, and the defendant also failed to show harmful jury-charge error, the court affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you may need to complain on appeal that counsel should have objected to prejudicial relationship or prior-acts evidence, build the record. Texas appellate courts usually will not infer ineffective assistance from silence when a plausible trial strategy can be imagined, so objections, rulings, limiting instructions, and—if necessary—a motion for new trial are critical."
In the Interest of Y.T., a Child
COA12
In *In re Y.T.*, a pro se father appealed a final SAPCR order after failing to appear for trial, challenging notice, supervised visitation, child support, and the order generally. The Tyler Court of Appeals did not reach the merits because the father’s brief offered only conclusory complaints and failed to provide meaningful legal analysis, record citations, or supporting authority as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(i). Applying the rule that pro se litigants are held to the same briefing standards as lawyers, the court held all appellate issues were inadequately briefed and therefore waived, and it affirmed the final SAPCR order.
Litigation Takeaway
"Family-law appeals can be lost on briefing before the court ever reaches the merits. Whether the complaint involves notice, possession restrictions, or child support, the appellant must connect the law to the record with developed argument, standards of review, and supporting authority; conclusory or grievance-style briefing waives error, even in SAPCR cases and even for pro se parties."
In re James E. White, IV, Marti White Wright, Clinton Wesley White, James E. White, III, and Hester Ann White
COA08
In this mandamus proceeding, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that a prior trust-modification order was void because it was entered without joining all designated beneficiaries as required by the Texas Trust Code. The trial court in the ongoing family trust dispute therefore abused its discretion by relying on that void order to appoint a successor trustee different from the person named in the trust instrument. Because the error affected control of the trust and ongoing litigation, the court found no adequate appellate remedy, conditionally granted mandamus, ordered the trial court to vacate the improper trustee appointment, and directed it to issue scire facias to bring the named successor trustee into the case.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-law cases that intersect with trusts, never assume a person has authority to act for the trust just because another court said so. If the underlying trust order was entered without all required beneficiaries, it may be void, and any later rulings built on it can be attacked by mandamus. Also, when a fiduciary dies during pending litigation, use proper substitution procedures like scire facias so the correct successor is before the court."
D&M Creative Custom Builders, Inc. v. Paul Pearce and Linda Pearce
COA09
In D&M Creative Custom Builders, Inc. v. Pearce, a homebuilder sued homeowners for unpaid extra work under quantum meruit. Before trial, the defendants objected under Texas Rule 193.6 to the builder’s expert and damages disclosures as inadequate. The trial court sustained the objection, ruled the builder had no evidence to prove its claim, dismissed the jury, and signed a take-nothing judgment. The Beaumont Court of Appeals reversed, explaining that Rule 193.6 is an evidentiary rule that permits exclusion of improperly disclosed evidence, but it does not authorize a court to convert that exclusion into a final merits judgment. Because no Rule 166a summary-judgment motion or other proper dispositive procedure was pending, the trial court effectively rendered an unauthorized sua sponte summary judgment. The court held the take-nothing judgment was improper and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-law cases, even a valid Rule 193.6 exclusion does not let the court end the case on the spot without the right procedural vehicle. If key expert, tracing, valuation, reimbursement, or fee evidence is excluded, the opponent still must use a proper dispositive process—like summary judgment, directed verdict, or trial on the merits—before obtaining a final ruling. The lesson is simple: exclusion and disposition are not the same thing, and lawyers should object immediately if a court tries to turn a disclosure ruling into a surprise merits judgment."