Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1544 opinions found
Armando Arredondo Jr. v. State of Texas
COA13
In this criminal appeal with strong family-law crossover value, the court held that the defendant waived any hearsay complaint about text-message exhibits because counsel affirmatively said there was no objection when the screenshots were offered and admitted, then objected only later when an officer began reading the already-admitted messages aloud. Applying Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a) and preservation principles from Ethington, the court concluded the objection was untimely and therefore did not reach the merits of whether the other side of the text conversation was hearsay or merely contextual. The court also modified the written judgment to correct an inaccuracy about the plea to an enhancement paragraph because the appellate record affirmatively showed the judgment did not match the truth of the record.
Litigation Takeaway
"Object when the exhibit is offered, not when the damaging contents are later read or emphasized. In abuse-related family cases involving texts, screenshots, records, and layered out-of-court statements, saying “no objection” to the exhibit will usually waive later admissibility complaints; if only part of the exhibit is problematic, request redaction, limitation, and a clear ruling at the time of admission."
In the Interest of E.R.T., a Child
COA13
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of the mother’s parental rights after a two-year-old child presented with severe unexplained injuries, multiple old and new fractures, bruising, respiratory distress, and extreme malnourishment. The court held that the medical evidence, the child’s overall condition, the mother’s status as primary caregiver, her failure to obtain regular medical care, and her shifting explanations supported clear-and-convincing findings under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). The same evidence supported the best-interest finding under § 161.001(b)(2), and the mother’s complaint about the de novo hearing was rejected because she failed to preserve error.
Litigation Takeaway
"You do not need an eyewitness to prove endangerment. In Texas family cases, objective medical records, injury patterns, caregiver exclusivity, delayed treatment, and inconsistent parental explanations can be enough to support severe conservatorship restrictions or even termination. Just as important, procedural complaints are worthless on appeal if counsel does not preserve them clearly in the trial court."
Ex parte Randy Louis Dupree
COA09
In Ex parte Randy Louis Dupree, the Beaumont Court of Appeals held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over an attempted appeal from the summary dismissal of an SVP detainee’s habeas application, but it could treat the filing as a mandamus proceeding because Dupree expressly requested that alternative relief. On the merits, the court applied mandamus standards and rejected Dupree’s as-applied constitutional challenge to GPS-monitoring requirements under Health and Safety Code section 841.082 and TCCO Policy 3.36 because he failed to develop a factual record showing those provisions operated unconstitutionally in his specific circumstances. The court therefore denied mandamus relief.
Litigation Takeaway
"If appealability is doubtful, ask the court to alternatively treat the filing as a mandamus proceeding—but do not expect procedural recasting to save a weak record. For family-law practitioners, the real lesson is to identify the correct appellate vehicle early and build a mandamus-ready, fact-specific record, especially for as-applied challenges to temporary orders, discovery rulings, or emergency custody decisions."
In the Interest of C.F.S., a Child
COA04
In this SAPCR appeal, the appellant tried to challenge trial-court rulings from June and September 2025, but the clerk’s record contained no written, signed order or judgment—only docket entries referencing the judge’s notes. The Fourth Court of Appeals applied settled Texas law holding that appellate jurisdiction depends on a written, signed appealable order, and that oral rulings, docket entries, and informal notes neither create an appealable order nor trigger appellate deadlines under Rule 26.1. The court also rejected the appellant’s reliance on a later modified temporary order because temporary orders under Family Code section 105.001 are not subject to interlocutory appeal. The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you want appellate review in a Texas family-law case, get a written, signed order into the record first. Bench rulings, judge’s notes, and docket entries do not create appellate jurisdiction, and temporary SAPCR orders generally cannot be challenged by interlocutory appeal—so lawyers must focus on obtaining a signed order, preserving error, and evaluating mandamus or final-judgment strategy instead."
Hawley v. State
COA09
In Hawley v. State, the Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed convictions for continuous sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child after the defendant challenged the admission of testimony from two additional witnesses describing other sexual offenses against children. The court held that Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.37, section 2 expressly permits this type of extraneous-offense evidence in qualifying child-sex prosecutions, including offenses like those charged here. It further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403 because the testimony was highly probative of the defendant’s pattern of abuse, grooming, secrecy, and access to child victims, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. The court also found the evidence legally sufficient and affirmed the judgments.
Litigation Takeaway
"When the governing rule or statute expressly allows pattern or other-incident evidence, the real evidentiary fight shifts to fit, similarity, remoteness, cumulativeness, and Rule 403 balancing. For family-law litigators handling abuse-related custody, modification, or protective-order cases, Hawley is a reminder to tie other-incident evidence to a concrete child-safety issue and to answer prejudice objections with precision rather than generalities."
Gonzales v. Contreras
COA04
After his mother’s death, Lorenzo Contreras tried to evict his stepfather, Alvino Gonzales, from the home through a forcible-detainer action, claiming ownership under an affidavit of heirship and warranty deed and alleging Gonzales was only a holdover tenant. Gonzales denied any true landlord-tenant relationship and asserted an independent right to remain as the surviving spouse based on homestead and life-estate protections. The Fourth Court of Appeals held that justice courts can decide eviction cases only when immediate possession can be resolved without deciding title. Because deciding possession here required resolving whether Gonzales’s surviving-spouse homestead or life-estate rights defeated Contreras’s ownership claim, title and possession were inseparable. The court therefore held the justice court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, the county court acquired no jurisdiction on de novo appeal, and both eviction judgments were void.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not use JP-court eviction procedure to shortcut a real property dispute when the occupant claims an independent spousal, homestead, probate, or life-estate right to stay in the home. If possession depends on resolving ownership or protected occupancy rights, file in a court that can adjudicate title first; otherwise any eviction judgment may be void."
In re Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, Allstate Texas Lloyds, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, and James Rudish
COA13
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief after a trial court authorized Rule 202 presuit depositions against Allstate and a claims handler without any actual evidence supporting the findings required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202.4(a). The appellate court held that pleadings, attorney argument, attached but unadmitted exhibits, and a non-evidentiary hearing do not satisfy Rule 202’s proof requirement. Because Rule 202 is an extraordinary presuit discovery device, the petitioner had to present admissible evidence showing either that the depositions might prevent a failure or delay of justice in anticipated litigation or that their likely benefit outweighed the burden and expense. With no evidentiary record supporting either finding, the trial court abused its discretion, and mandamus was proper because the harm from unauthorized presuit discovery cannot be adequately remedied on appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"Rule 202 requires proof, not just a detailed petition and lawyer argument. If you want presuit discovery, set an evidentiary hearing and offer admissible evidence supporting one of Rule 202.4(a)’s required findings; if you are opposing the request and the court proceeds without evidence, mandamus is a strong and immediate remedy."
Hawley v. State
COA09
In Hawley v. State, the Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed convictions for continuous sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and to the admission of testimony from other child victims. The court held that Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.37, section 2, allowed the State to admit evidence of Hawley’s other sexual acts against children for any relevant purpose, including character conformity, because the charged offenses were among those covered by the statute. The court then conducted a Rule 403 analysis and concluded the testimony’s strong probative value—showing a recurring pattern of abuse in caretaking settings and bolstering credibility in a case dependent on victim testimony—was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The judgments were affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"When abuse allegations turn on credibility and private conduct, pattern evidence involving other children can carry major probative force if it is tied to safety, risk, access, and method—not just bad character. For family-law cases, the practical lesson is that admission fights will often be won or lost on a detailed Rule 403 record about similarity, necessity, cumulativeness, and reliability rather than on broad prejudice objections."
Hawley v. State
COA09
In Hawley v. State, the Beaumont Court of Appeals reviewed convictions for continuous sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child after the defendant challenged the admission of testimony from two other witnesses describing similar sexual misconduct involving minors. The court held that Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.37, section 2 allows the State to introduce other child-sex-offense evidence, including for character-conformity purposes, but that the evidence remains subject to Rule 403 balancing. Applying that framework, the court found the other-witness testimony highly probative because it showed a recurring pattern of abuse in similar relational and custodial settings, including access to children, secrecy, and comparable sexualized conduct, which corroborated the complainant’s allegations in a credibility-driven case involving delayed disclosure and private acts. The court concluded the testimony was damaging but not unfairly prejudicial in the Rule 403 sense, and it affirmed the convictions.
Litigation Takeaway
"When trying or defending abuse-related family cases, pattern evidence rises or falls on structure, not outrage. The winning approach is to tie other-incident evidence to concrete probative features—similarity, access, relationship, secrecy, grooming, delayed disclosure, and present child-safety risk—while building a clear Rule 403 record on why the evidence is or is not more probative than prejudicial."
Lee v. Lundquist
COA04
In Lee v. Lundquist, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the key property to characterize was the spouses’ LLC membership interests, not the duplex later transferred into the LLC. Because the parties formed 9018 Wellwood LLC during marriage and received their membership interests at that time, those interests were presumed community property under Texas Family Code section 3.003. The wife’s tracing evidence showed only that separate funds may have been used to purchase the duplex later deeded to the LLC, but it did not prove that her membership interest itself was separate when created. Applying the inception-of-title doctrine, the court held the membership interests were characterized when issued, and the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the interests were community property.
Litigation Takeaway
"When an LLC is formed during marriage, separate-property tracing aimed only at the company’s later-acquired assets usually will not establish that the membership interest itself is separate. In characterization disputes, target the correct property interest, prove its inception date, and if tracing does not reach the ownership interest itself, consider reimbursement or offset theories instead."