Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
723 opinions found
Fusilier v. State of Texas ex rel. Galloway
COA04
Joshua Fusilier appealed a civil protective order issued in favor of Valencia Galloway, arguing that his subsequent acquittal in a related criminal case necessitated the order's dissolution and that the evidence against him was insufficient. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the order, explaining that civil protective orders and criminal trials operate under different legal standards—"preponderance of the evidence" versus "beyond a reasonable doubt." The court held that a complainant's credible testimony regarding a physical struggle is legally sufficient to support a finding of family violence, and a "not guilty" verdict in criminal court does not invalidate a civil court's finding that violence was likely to occur.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas, a criminal acquittal does not automatically overturn a civil protective order. Because the 'burden of proof' is lower in civil proceedings, a family court can still maintain a protective order even if the state fails to secure a criminal conviction for the same conduct."
Castillo v. State
COA07
In a case involving aggravated assault of a child, the defendant challenged the reliability of a burn expert's testimony regarding the timing of the injury. The trial court admitted the testimony over an objection that the State 'failed to lay a proper predicate.' The Seventh Court of Appeals held that a 'predicate' objection is too general to preserve a Rule 702 reliability complaint for appeal, as it fails to specify whether the challenge concerns the expert's qualifications, the methodology, or the application of facts. Analyzing the merits in the alternative, the court found no abuse of discretion, ruling that the expert's extensive clinical experience provided a sufficient basis for his opinions and that gaps in scientific literature were matters for cross-examination rather than exclusion.
Litigation Takeaway
"A general 'lack of predicate' or 'foundation' objection will not preserve a Daubert/Robinson challenge to an expert's reliability; you must explicitly object under Rule 702 and identify the specific methodological gap or analytical defect to avoid waiving the issue for appeal."
Kapasi v. Villarreal
COA14
In this case, Ashrafi Kapasi sued Stalina Villarreal over a motor vehicle accident. Villarreal eventually filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment under Rule 166a(i), asserting Kapasi lacked evidence for essential elements of the claims. Kapasi did not file a response but argued that her prior request for a jury trial and payment of the jury fee preserved her right to a trial. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed Rule 166a(i) and the Texas Constitution, determining that the right to a jury trial is not absolute but contingent upon the existence of a material fact issue. The court held that a trial court must grant a no-evidence motion for summary judgment if the non-movant fails to produce evidence raising a genuine issue of fact, regardless of a pending jury demand.
Litigation Takeaway
"A jury demand is not a shield against summary judgment; failing to file a timely, evidence-backed response to a no-evidence motion will result in the mandatory dismissal of your claims, even if you have paid for a jury."
Williams-James v. James
COA03
In Williams-James v. James, the appellant challenged the accuracy of the reporter’s record, claiming it was incomplete and that certain exhibits were improperly included or omitted. The Third Court of Appeals analyzed the dispute under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6, which requires a trial court to resolve record inaccuracies that the parties cannot agree upon. The court held that it could not adjudicate these factual disputes in the first instance and ordered the appeal abated and remanded to the trial court for a formal hearing to settle the record.
Litigation Takeaway
"The integrity of the trial record is the foundation of any appeal; if you discover the reporter's record is inaccurate or incomplete after it has been filed, you must file a formal motion to abate the appeal so the trial court can settle the dispute through a hearing."
In the Matter of the Expunction of K.J.
COA08
After K.J. was indicted for causing injury to a child, the State dismissed the charges due to 'insufficient evidence' and K.J.'s completion of a parenting class. K.J. subsequently sought an expunction of the records. The El Paso Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of the expunction, clarifying that 'insufficient evidence' is not legally equivalent to the statutory requirements of 'mistake, false information, or lack of probable cause' needed for an expunction. The court held that because expunction is a statutory privilege and not an equitable right, the petitioner failed to meet the strict evidentiary burden required to scrub the criminal record.
Litigation Takeaway
"A criminal dismissal for 'insufficient evidence' does not automatically entitle a party to an expunction. For family law practitioners, this means that unless an opponent can prove factual innocence or mistake in an expunction hearing, their history of arrests or indictments for child abuse remains accessible and admissible for 'best interest' analyses in custody disputes."
In re Ha Duong
COA01
In the divorce case of In re Ha Duong, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on several pending motions that had been delayed. The First Court of Appeals reviewed whether the trial court had breached its ministerial duty to rule within a reasonable time. The court determined that because the trial judge remained engaged in the litigation and was 'actively managing' the case through other proceedings, the delay did not amount to a refusal to act. Consequently, the appellate court denied the petition, holding that the relator failed to prove a clear abuse of discretion or a total breakdown in the judicial process.
Litigation Takeaway
"The mere passage of time is rarely enough to force a judge to rule; you must demonstrate that the trial court has completely stopped managing the case or specifically refused to perform its duty despite proper requests."
Piper v. Tax Rescue II, LLC
COA14
In Piper v. Tax Rescue II, LLC, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed a dispute over whether a party received proper notice of a summary judgment motion and whether tax liens take priority over adverse possession claims. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a(e), which establishes that a certificate of service creates a rebuttable presumption of receipt. Because the appellant provided only unsworn allegations of non-receipt rather than affirmative evidence (such as affidavits or technical proof of delivery failure), the court held the presumption was not rebutted. Furthermore, the court held that under the Texas Tax Code, transferred tax liens maintain a "special priority status" superior to unperfected adverse possession claims. The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"To protect your filings against a pro se litigant's claim of non-receipt, ensure the party's email address is memorialized in the withdrawal order of their former counsel. If you are the party claiming non-receipt, you must provide affirmative evidence—such as affidavits or IT logs—to overcome the Rule 21a presumption; mere allegations are legally insufficient."
In re Stephen Girard
COA03
After a father was sentenced to 180 days in jail for allegedly violating child possession provisions, the Third Court of Appeals ordered his immediate discharge because the trial court's commitment order was too vague. The Court analyzed Texas Family Code § 157.166(b), which mandates that enforcement orders must include specific findings identifying the provisions violated and the exact dates of non-compliance. Because the trial court relied on a generic 'Writ to Sheriff' that lacked these details, the appellate court held the order was void for violating constitutional due process requirements.
Litigation Takeaway
"When seeking to jail a party for contempt, a 'win' at the hearing is meaningless if the final commitment order is not drafted with extreme technical precision. An enforcement order must explicitly list every date of violation and the specific decree language breached; otherwise, the incarcerated party can secure their release through a habeas corpus challenge based on due process deficiencies."
Bess v. State
COA01
Kendrick Bess appealed his conviction for aggravated assault of a family member, arguing that the trial judge’s active questioning and summarization of witness testimony violated his due process right to a neutral and detached judge. The State contended the appeal was procedurally defective because it was 'multifarious'—bundling multiple legal theories into a single point of error. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the 'interest of justice' exception, determining that it could review multifarious issues if the underlying complaint is discernable with reasonable certainty. On the merits, the court held that trial judges are presumed neutral and that actions taken to manage the courtroom or clarify facts do not constitute bias unless they reveal high-degree favoritism or antagonism. The court ultimately found the judge’s interventions were administrative in nature and affirmed the conviction.
Litigation Takeaway
"To challenge a trial judge's perceived bias on appeal, you must build a record of conduct that transcends mere 'courtroom management'; however, even if your appellate brief is technically multifarious, the 'interest of justice' standard may save the issue if the alleged error is clearly identifiable."
In the Estate of Thomas Doniver Fugler, Jr., Deceased
COA06
In a probate proceeding, non-party stepdaughter Christy Lynne Powell filed a "Notice of Possible Fraud and Concealment." A party to the case moved to strike the filing and requested sanctions, which the trial court granted, finding the filing groundless and brought in bad faith. Powell attempted to appeal the $750 sanction. The Sixth Court of Appeals analyzed whether a non-party possesses appellate standing and whether such a sanctions order constitutes a final, appealable judgment under the probate exception. The court held that because Powell never formally intervened, she remained a non-party without standing to appeal, and she failed to demonstrate that the order qualified as a final judgment on a discrete issue. The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Non-parties such as stepchildren or meddling relatives who interfere in litigation with unauthorized filings risk immediate, unappealable sanctions. Because non-parties generally lack appellate standing, a trial court's order for sanctions under Rule 13 or Chapter 10 provides a powerful and final deterrent against "shadow litigants" in high-conflict family law or probate disputes."