Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
Strategy Category
358 opinions found
Christopher Michael Green v. The State of Texas
COA05
In Green v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals examined whether a trial court erred by admitting SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) records of an unavailable victim during a criminal punishment phase. The defendant argued that admitting graphic forensic evidence without the victim's testimony was unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 because he could not cross-examine the witness. The court analyzed the records' high probative value regarding the defendant's character and pattern of behavior, especially since the forensic evidence was linked to the defendant via DNA. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, ruling that forensic medical records are admissible to show a pattern of conduct even without live testimony from the victim.
Litigation Takeaway
"In high-conflict custody or termination cases, practitioners can leverage forensic 'paper trails'—like SANE or medical records—to prove a history of violence or bad character, even if the victims of those acts are unavailable or unwilling to testify in court."
IN RE THANH VAN TRAN
COA05
In In re Thanh Van Tran, the Relator sought a writ of mandamus to challenge a capias order issued by the 494th District Court of Collin County. The Dallas Court of Appeals denied the petition on procedural grounds, holding that the Relator failed to satisfy the "predicate-request requirement." Under Texas law, a party seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must generally demonstrate that they first asked the trial court to correct the perceived error—such as by filing a motion to vacate the order—and that the trial court refused. Because the Relator failed to seek relief at the trial level first and did not prove that such a request would have been futile, the Court denied the petition without addressing the underlying merits of the capias order.
Litigation Takeaway
"You cannot bypass the trial court when seeking emergency appellate relief. Before filing a petition for writ of mandamus to challenge a capias or enforcement order, you must first file a motion to vacate or modify that order in the trial court to create a "refusal record" for the court of appeals."
Keenan Deandre Black v. The State of Texas
COA02
In Black v. State, the court addressed a conflict where a trial judge orally waived a $6,000 fine during sentencing, yet the final written judgment still included the charge. Additionally, the defendant argued his probation should not be revoked because his supervision officer had allegedly modified his deadlines. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed the 'Rendition vs. Entry' doctrine, affirming that a judge's oral pronouncement in open court is the legally operative event that controls over a conflicting written document. Furthermore, the court held that community supervision is a judicial order, not a private contract, meaning only a judge—not a probation officer—has the authority to modify its terms. The court modified the judgment to delete the fine but upheld the probation revocation.
Litigation Takeaway
"The judge’s oral ruling from the bench is the ultimate authority; if your written decree contains errors or extra terms not mentioned by the judge, the oral record can be used to fix it. More importantly, never rely on 'side deals' or verbal permission from caseworkers or third parties to deviate from a court order—only a formal, judge-signed modification can legally protect you."
C. Q. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
COA03
The Department of Family and Protective Services sought to terminate a mother’s parental rights following allegations of drug use and child neglect. While the mother demonstrated significant recent progress, including stable housing and numerous negative urinalyses, she continued to test positive for cocaine in hair follicle tests. Additionally, her live-in fiancé refused to submit to drug testing. The Court of Appeals analyzed the conflicting forensic evidence and the mother's choice of partners under the "clear and convincing" evidentiary standard. The court held that the trial court was entitled to credit the hair follicle results over other tests and that the presence of an untested partner constituted endangering conduct. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the termination of her parental rights.
Litigation Takeaway
"In termination proceedings, hair follicle tests are often treated as the 'gold standard' and can outweigh clean urinalyses or nail tests. Furthermore, a parent is responsible for the safety of their home environment; a romantic partner’s refusal to submit to drug testing can be legally imputed to the parent as a failure to protect the child from endangerment."
In re Steven Broomfield and Lisa Broomfield
COA06
Relators sought a writ of mandamus to compel a Panola County court to grant a mandatory transfer of a SAPCR proceeding to Smith County, where an adoption was pending, pursuant to Texas Family Code Section 155.201(a-1). The child's mother had filed a controverting affidavit, and the trial court had scheduled a hearing on the matter. The Sixth Court of Appeals analyzed the statutory framework, noting that while Section 155.201(a-1) is mandatory, Section 155.204(e) requires a hearing when a transfer is contested. The court held that mandamus relief was inappropriate because the Relators failed to show that the trial court had refused to rule or that an unreasonable amount of time had passed, especially since a hearing was already on the docket.
Litigation Takeaway
"Mandamus relief is not a shortcut to bypass statutory hearing requirements; even for "mandatory" transfers, you must allow the trial court a reasonable opportunity to conduct a scheduled hearing and issue a ruling before seeking appellate intervention."
YOLANDA HERNANDEZ, Appellant v. EKISRA FRED LOUNNARATH AND AMX PCS, INC., Appellee
COA05
When a party fails to appear for trial, leading to a dismissal for want of prosecution, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(3) requires the court to reinstate the case if the failure was due to an 'accident or mistake' rather than 'conscious indifference.' In this case, a law firm missed a trial setting because of a clerical calendaring error and a mistaken belief that a proposed scheduling order would be signed. The trial court denied reinstatement, finding the attorney's reliance on unsigned orders unreasonable. The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that even if an attorney’s mistake is negligent or 'objectively unreasonable,' it does not constitute conscious indifference. As long as the failure to appear was not intentional or a purposeful disregard of the court's authority, the trial court must reinstate the case.
Litigation Takeaway
"A simple clerical error or an 'unreasonable' misunderstanding of a court deadline is sufficient to reinstate a dismissed case, as the law protects litigants from losing their day in court due to an attorney’s non-intentional administrative mistakes."
Bravo v. Bravo
COA02
In Bravo v. Bravo, a Husband challenged a final divorce decree that appointed the Wife as sole managing conservator, denied him all access to his children, and ordered child support. He argued he received only four days' notice of the trial and that the evidence was insufficient to support the findings. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 245 and the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court held that because the Husband's attorney appeared and announced 'ready' at trial, any objection to the 45-day notice requirement was waived. Furthermore, because the Husband failed to provide a reporter’s record (the transcript of the trial), the court applied an irrebuttable presumption that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the judge's rulings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decree in its entirety.
Litigation Takeaway
"Procedural technicalities can win or lose an appeal before it even begins. In Texas family law, if your attorney announces 'ready' for a hearing, you waive any right to complain about lack of notice. Additionally, you cannot win an appeal based on 'lack of evidence' if you fail to provide the appellate court with the transcript of the trial; without that record, the court will automatically assume the trial judge had enough evidence to make their ruling."
IN RE ADNAN UMAIR JANJUA AND UZMA JANJUA, Relators
COA05
The Fifth Court of Appeals dismissed a petition for a writ of mandamus filed against a county clerk who allegedly refused to file specific documents. The court analyzed its jurisdiction under Texas Government Code § 22.221, noting that while it has the power to issue writs against judges, its authority over non-judicial officers like clerks is strictly limited to instances where the writ is necessary to protect the court's own appellate jurisdiction. Because the relators did not demonstrate that the clerk's refusal interfered with a pending appeal, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to intervene.
Litigation Takeaway
"You cannot 'leapfrog' the trial court when a clerk refuses to file a document; you must first file a motion to compel in the trial court and obtain a ruling from the judge before seeking mandamus relief from a Court of Appeals."
EarnhartBuilt, LLC v. Preferred Materials, LLC, Procore Technologies, Inc., Express Lien, Inc. d/b/a Levelset, Michael Mann, and J. Earnhart, Inc.
COA05
In EarnhartBuilt, LLC v. Preferred Materials, LLC, a materials supplier filed a lien to collect $17,000 for concrete delivered to a construction project. The property owner sued, claiming the lien was "fraudulent" under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 12.002 because it was filed after the statutory deadline. The Dallas Court of Appeals analyzed the "knowledge" and "intent" requirements of the statute, distinguishing between a lien that is merely legally invalid and one that is fraudulent. The court held that because the underlying debt for the materials was legitimate, the supplier did not have the requisite "actual knowledge" of fraudulence at the time of filing, even if the lien was procedurally defective. The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the supplier.
Litigation Takeaway
"A lien is not "fraudulent" simply because it is legally unenforceable or filed late. To recover statutory damages for a fraudulent lien, a party must prove the filer actually knew the lien was fraudulent—meaning a misrepresentation of the truth—at the moment of filing. If there is a bona fide underlying debt, technical or procedural failures will generally not trigger the severe penalties of the fraudulent lien statute."
Mangawe v. The State of Texas
COA02
Bengamiah Mangawe appealed a conviction for continuous sexual abuse, arguing that vague testimony regarding dates (like 'November-ish') failed to meet the 30-day statutory duration requirement. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals analyzed the evidence under a deferential standard, noting that a detective's testimony about Mangawe’s non-verbal 'nod' or confirmation of the timeline during an interview was substantive evidence. The court held that the jury is the sole arbiter of credibility and can resolve chronological conflicts in favor of the verdict, even when dates are approximate or admissions are not captured on audio.
Litigation Takeaway
"Vague chronological approximations like 'November-ish' are sufficient to prove a pattern of conduct if anchored by a witness who can testify to a party's non-verbal confirmation or 'nod' regarding the timeframe."