Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1544 opinions found
Patrick Lawler v. The State of Texas
COA02
In Lawler v. State, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals upheld convictions for sexual performance by a child and multiple aggravated sexual assault offenses arising from a child’s disclosures to school staff, forensic interviewers, and a caregiver. The defendant argued the evidence was insufficient because the child’s statements were inconsistent and evolved over time, and he also claimed double jeopardy based on multiple punishments involving the same child. Applying deferential legal-sufficiency review, the court held that the jury could credit the child’s testimony despite omissions, inconsistencies, and incremental disclosures, and could reasonably infer inducement from the defendant’s authority and the child’s statements that he “had to” comply. The court also held that double jeopardy was not violated because the convictions were based on distinct acts occurring on different occasions, not the same unit of prosecution. The court modified the judgments to remove unpronounced fines and otherwise affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-law cases involving child abuse allegations, inconsistent or piecemeal child disclosures do not automatically defeat the case. Build the record incident-by-incident and outcry-by-outcry, preserve the child’s language, and separate distinct acts, dates, and recipients so the factfinder can credit the child and draw reasonable inferences from authority, dependency, and context."
United Waterworks, LLC and Gary Tompkins v. Pranesh Jayaprakash
COA14
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed a summary judgment that was based entirely on deemed admissions after the defendants failed to answer requests for admissions because their lawyer’s email-routing system mistakenly sent the filings into an inactive folder. Applying Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 198.3 and the Texas Supreme Court’s decisions in Marino, Wheeler, and Goudeau, the court held the verified explanation showed good cause because the failure resulted from accident or mistake rather than conscious indifference, and the plaintiff showed no undue prejudice because the case was still early in the schedule with ample time before discovery cutoff and trial. Because the deemed admissions conclusively established liability and damages and were used as a case-ending trapdoor instead of a merits determination, the trial court should have withdrawn them, so the final judgment was reversed and the case remanded.
Litigation Takeaway
"Deemed admissions are useful to narrow issues, but they are risky when used to win an entire case by default. If missed admissions resulted from a documented clerical or e-service mistake and withdrawal will not meaningfully prejudice the other side, Rule 198.3 should provide relief—especially when the admissions decide the core merits. Family lawyers should build independent proof for summary judgment and use RFAs mainly for authentication and truly undisputed facts."
In re La Joya Independent School District
COA13
In this mandamus proceeding, La Joya ISD challenged a trial court order compelling production of emails, texts, memoranda, letters, and recordings from an outside-counsel-led internal discrimination investigation. The court analyzed whether the district made a prima facie showing that the communications were made to facilitate legal services under Texas Rule of Evidence 503 and that the investigative materials were prepared in reasonable anticipation of litigation under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.5. Relying on the legal-services contract, pre-suit notice letter, counsel’s affidavit, and the scope of the requested materials, the court held the files were protected by attorney-client privilege and work product, that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering production, and that mandamus was proper because disclosure of privileged material cannot be cured on appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"When discovery targets a lawyer-directed internal investigation, relevance is not enough. Build a privilege record with affidavits, engagement documents, and objective signs of anticipated litigation; if the court still orders production of privileged files, mandamus may be the fastest and best remedy."
Fields v. State
COA02
In Fields v. State, the defendant sought recorded calls and text messages with a confidential informant under Article 39.14, arguing the materials were discoverable and relevant to her defense. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that Article 39.14 does not override privileges because the statute requires disclosure only of material that is 'not otherwise privileged.' Applying Texas Rule of Evidence 508, the court concluded the requested communications were protected because producing them would reveal the informant’s identity. The court further held that the defendant did not make the concrete showing needed to trigger Rule 508’s exception for testimony necessary to a fair determination of guilt or innocence, and she also failed to show the materials contained exculpatory information. Because no exception defeated the privilege, the trial court properly denied discovery.
Litigation Takeaway
"Broad discovery rights do not automatically defeat privilege. In family-law litigation, if requested recordings, messages, reports, or third-party communications would reveal protected identities or privileged source information, the requesting party must do more than show relevance—they must identify a valid exception and build a concrete record showing why disclosure is legally required."
In the Interest of S.C., Jr., J.A.V., and K.A.V., Children
COA07
The Amarillo Court of Appeals affirmed termination of Father’s parental rights under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(Q). Father was serving concurrent 12-year and 15-year prison sentences after convictions for multiple offenses, including domestic-violence assault and evading arrest, and the Department filed its petition on July 9, 2024. The court focused on whether Father would be unable to care for the children for at least two years from that filing date and held the evidence was sufficient because parole had already been denied, he would not be eligible again for at least two years, and his suggested relative placement never developed into a workable care plan. The court also rejected Father’s unpreserved constitutional challenge, holding that termination appeals do not excuse preservation requirements under a fundamental-error theory.
Litigation Takeaway
"When litigating incarceration-based termination or parenting disputes, courts want concrete proof, not possibilities. Speculative parole, prison programming, or vague claims that a relative could help will not defeat a showing that an incarcerated parent cannot care for a child during the statutory period; lawyers need hard release-date evidence and a real, documented caregiving plan."
In the Interest of M.A., a Child
COA02
In In re M.A., the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that Family Code Section 154.130(a)(3) does not require a trial court to make child-support findings on its own unless the ordered support actually deviates from the statutory guideline amount. The father argued the modified support order was effectively above-guidelines because the court ordered $1,610 per month without making deviation findings. The appellate court rejected that argument after applying the statutory framework: Father had one child before the court and one other child not before the court, so Section 154.129 required a 17.5% multiple-family guideline percentage, and because his net monthly resources exceeded the statutory cap, that percentage applied only to $9,200 under Section 154.125. Since 17.5% of $9,200 equals $1,610, the order matched the guideline amount exactly and was not a deviation. The court also held that Father's challenge to only one modification ground did not warrant reversal because the trial court found alternative grounds under Section 156.401(a).
Litigation Takeaway
"Before complaining that a child-support order lacks Section 154.130 findings, first do the guideline math. If the court simply applied the correct multiple-family percentage and the statutory net-resources cap, the order is still a guideline order, not a deviation. Real appellate issues usually lie in the net-resources evidence, the cap, the other-child adjustment, or preservation—not in demanding findings the statute never required."
Williams v. State
COA01
In Williams v. State, the First Court of Appeals held that a party does not preserve error about excluded or redacted portions of a record by making only a generic objection that the exhibit is incomplete or misleading. The defendant argued on appeal that redacted mental-health and prior-history references in a Children’s Assessment Center record were necessary to support an alternate explanation for the complainant’s allegations, but at trial he did not specifically articulate that theory, did not offer the unredacted record, and did not make an adequate offer of proof showing the substance and relevance of the excluded material. The court therefore held the evidentiary complaint was not preserved, and it likewise held that the defendant forfeited his due-process 'complete defense' argument because that constitutional ground was not distinctly raised in the trial court.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you believe a redacted or partial record creates a misleading picture, do more than say it is incomplete. Tender the omitted material, explain exactly why it is admissible and relevant, obtain a ruling, and preserve the substance of the exclusion through an offer of proof or sealed exhibit. And if you want to rely on a constitutional theory, raise that theory expressly in the trial court too."
In re Joshua George Peacock
COA14
In In re Peacock, the trial court held Joshua Peacock in contempt in a post-divorce enforcement case based on alleged failures to pay two child-support installments and to comply with insurance and life-insurance-proof obligations. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that contempt in a family-law enforcement case must strictly track the motion for enforcement and the proof because Texas Family Code sections 157.002 and 157.166, along with due process, require specific notice of each alleged violation and a contempt order that specifically states the manner of noncompliance. Because the contempt order went beyond the notice provided in the enforcement motion and imposed coercive conditions not properly tethered to the pleaded violations, the order was void to that extent. The court conditionally granted mandamus and directed the trial court to vacate the contempt order.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you want contempt, plead each violation with exact dates, amounts, and conduct, then make sure the contempt order mirrors those allegations exactly. In Texas family-law enforcement, overbroad pleadings or orders can destroy an otherwise valid contempt remedy, and respondents should compare the motion, evidence, and order line by line for due-process defects."
In the Interest of S.G.H. and W.C.H., Children
COA13
In In re S.G.H. and W.C.H., the trial court dismissed a modification case for want of prosecution, and after plenary power expired Father filed a separate bill of review. Although the trial court granted the bill of review and vacated the dismissal, it later signed a new modification order in the original cause number rather than retrying the merits in the bill-of-review proceeding. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that granting a bill of review does not restore plenary power in the original case; instead, any retrial must occur in the separate bill-of-review action. Because the 2024 modification order was signed in the original cause years after dismissal, it was void, so the court vacated the order and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"A bill of review can wipe out an old judgment, but it does not reopen the original case for a new merits ruling. In family cases, lawyers must move all post-bill-of-review litigation into the bill-of-review cause number; if the court signs a modification or other merits order in the old dismissed case after plenary power expired, that order may be void and the entire effort wasted."
Marco Castro v. Monica Silva Castro
COA08
In Castro v. Castro, the husband challenged a divorce attorney’s-fees award on appeal, arguing the trial court improperly based the award in part on a temporary spousal-support issue. The El Paso Court of Appeals did not reach the merits because the record showed he never preserved the complaint in the trial court. He did not object when wife’s counsel requested to prove fees by affidavit, did not object to the affidavit after it was filed, did not challenge the interim fee ruling, and did not object to the fee provisions in the final decree or later payment-related filings. Applying Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a), and relying on authorities treating fee complaints as ordinary preservable error, the court held that any challenge to the legal basis or evidentiary support for the fee award was waived. The court therefore overruled the issue without addressing whether the $15,000 fee award was substantively proper.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you want to challenge attorney’s fees in a family-law case, you must object in the trial court—early, specifically, and repeatedly if necessary. Silence to affidavit proof, interim rulings, or decree language will likely waive appellate review, even if the fee award may have been vulnerable on the merits."