Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1544 opinions found
Harrison v. State
COA07
In Harrison v. State, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that a defendant waived his Rules 403 and 404(b) complaints about pornography-related search-history, image, and video evidence by later telling the trial court he had 'No objection' when the same exhibits were reoffered for publication to the jury. Although defense counsel had initially made specific objections and obtained a running objection, the trial court later required any renewed offer of the exhibits to be brought back for a further ruling after additional predicate was laid. Because counsel did not renew the objections at that later stage—and instead affirmatively accepted the evidence—the court found error was not preserved under Rule 33.1(a). The court also explained that, even if preserved, the trial court would not have abused its discretion because the challenged evidence closely tracked the charged step-family relationship and was probative of intent rather than mere character conformity.
Litigation Takeaway
"A running objection is not bulletproof. If the court defers, conditions, or stages admission of evidence, treat each later offer, publication, or reuse as a fresh preservation moment. Never say 'No objection' to evidence you may want to challenge on appeal; instead, renew the prior objection and obtain a ruling."
Harrison v. State
COA07
In Harrison v. State, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that a defendant waived prior Rule 403 and 404(b) complaints about digital child-sex evidence when, after obtaining a running objection, he later said "No objection" after the trial court required the exhibits to be reoffered before publication to the jury. The court reasoned that the earlier running objection did not preserve error indefinitely once the evidentiary posture changed and the court required a renewed offer and ruling. The court also explained that, even if preserved, the search-history and image evidence was sufficiently probative because it mirrored the alleged familial dynamic and was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Litigation Takeaway
"A running objection is not self-executing forever. If the court requires an exhibit to be reoffered, family law trial counsel must renew the objection or expressly state that the prior objection continues; saying "No objection" will likely waive the issue on appeal."
Mathis v. State
COA06
In Mathis v. State, the Texarkana Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction for assault family violence causing bodily injury, holding the evidence was legally sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia. The complainant testified that Mathis hit and choked her during multiple incidents, and her account was corroborated by injury photographs, 9-1-1 calls, family-member testimony, officer observations, rideshare evidence, and Mathis’s own recorded statements. The court emphasized that appellate review does not reweigh credibility disputes and must defer to the jury’s resolution of conflicting evidence when a rational factfinder could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Litigation Takeaway
"Family-violence claims become far more persuasive when testimony is backed by contemporaneous corroboration such as photos, 9-1-1 recordings, officer observations, third-party witnesses, timeline evidence, and party admissions. For family-law cases, Mathis is a strong reminder that credibility attacks alone may fail when the record contains multiple reinforcing sources of proof."
In the Interest of V.L.G. and J.M.A. Jr., Children
COA13
After a 2018 final order denied termination but left the Department as permanent managing conservator, the Department refiled under Texas Family Code § 161.004. The court compared circumstances at the time of the earlier order with those at the 2025 trial and held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to show a material and substantial change: the father had since been indicted, convicted of injury to a child, and sentenced to sixty years in prison, and the children had moved from instability to a successful long-term foster placement where they were bonded, thriving, and seeking permanency. The court also upheld the endangerment findings under § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) and affirmed termination in full.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a prior order denies termination, that does not end the case forever. For any family-law case involving a changed-circumstances standard, the winning strategy is a tight 'then versus now' record showing specific post-order developments—especially criminal convictions, incarceration, placement changes, and the child’s current need for stability and permanency."
Perry v. State
COA01
In Perry v. State, the defendant argued the trial court improperly admitted a mother’s outcry testimony about abuse acts different from the oral-sex allegation charged in the indictment. The court did not decide whether the outcry ruling was actually wrong; instead, it assumed error and focused on harm under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b). Because the complainant herself later testified without objection to the same and more extensive abuse, the challenged testimony was cumulative and could not have affected the verdict except slightly. The court also upheld admission of forensic interview excerpts after defense opening statement suggested no disclosure had occurred, reasoning the evidence was admissible to correct a misleading impression. The conviction was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Winning an evidentiary objection is not enough to win an appeal if the same facts come in elsewhere without objection. In family-law cases involving abuse allegations, lawyers must preserve objections across the whole record and be careful in opening statement, because broad claims about "no disclosure" can open the door to otherwise disputed interview or outcry evidence."
In re Makayla Montoya-Frazier and Buckle Bunnies Fund
COA02
In this Fort Worth mandamus proceeding, Zach Maxwell sought presuit discovery under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 from Makayla Montoya-Frazier and Buckle Bunnies Fund, claiming he needed a deposition and documents to investigate potential claims and avoid a failure or delay of justice. The court held that Rule 202.4’s required findings cannot rest on a verified petition, attachments, or attorney argument alone; the petitioner must present admissible evidence showing either that the likely benefit of the requested discovery outweighs its burden or expense, or that the discovery is needed to prevent a failure or delay of justice. Because Maxwell failed to provide competent evidence supporting either pathway, the trial court abused its discretion by granting the petition. The court dismissed the attempted appeal for lack of jurisdiction, treated the matter as mandamus because the targets were anticipated defendants, and conditionally granted mandamus directing the trial court to vacate the Rule 202 order and deny the petition.
Litigation Takeaway
"Rule 202 is an extraordinary presuit tool, not a shortcut to ordinary discovery. If you want presuit discovery, build a real evidentiary record with admissible proof of necessity and burden-benefit; if you oppose it, attack unsupported allegations, hearsay attachments, and attorney argument, and be prepared to pursue mandamus when the order targets an anticipated defendant."
In the Matter of the Marriage of Kathryn Marks Smith and Carey Dennis Smith
COA10
In this divorce appeal, the wife challenged the trial court’s characterization of disputed assets as the husband’s separate property and the denial of her reimbursement and interspousal tort claims. While that appeal was pending, she sold real property awarded to her in the decree. The Tenth Court of Appeals applied the acceptance of benefits doctrine, focusing on whether her post-judgment conduct showed dominion over decree-awarded property and whether that conduct made meaningful relief on appeal impracticable. Because her issues could have required remand of the entire community estate for a new just-and-right division under Texas Family Code § 7.001, and because the sold real property had been dissipated and later developed, the court concluded the estate could not be meaningfully restored. The court held that by selling the awarded property, the wife accepted the benefits of the decree and was barred from appealing, so the appeal was dismissed.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you plan to appeal a divorce property division, do not sell or materially alter real property awarded in the decree while the appeal is pending. In Texas, characterization and reimbursement complaints often put the entire community estate back in play, and disposing of awarded real estate can trigger the acceptance of benefits doctrine and kill the appeal altogether."
In the Interest of L.Q.-W., L.W., and L.W., Children
COA02
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of a mother’s parental rights after evidence showed she attempted suicide by ingesting antifreeze and alcohol while she was the sole caregiver for three very young children. The court held that this incident, combined with her untreated mental-health issues, failure to complete services, minimal visitation, and failure to appear at trial, was legally and factually sufficient to support endangerment findings under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). The court also upheld the best-interest finding and affirmed denial of placement with the children’s grandfather because the record supported the trial court’s conclusion that his home was not a safe relative placement.
Litigation Takeaway
"A mental-health crisis can support an endangerment finding when the evidence ties the episode to immediate danger to the children, especially where the parent is the only available caregiver. Relative placement is never automatic—family members must prove their home is presently safe, and preservation and briefing defects can sink appellate complaints."
Amber Nicole Perez v. Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP), Inc.
COA13
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals reversed and dissolved a temporary injunction against Amber Nicole Perez because the written order did not strictly comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683. Although the trial court had orally indicated SNAP showed potential harm, the order itself failed to state the reasons for issuance and failed to set the case for trial on the merits. Applying settled Texas authority that Rule 683 must be satisfied within the four corners of the injunction order, the court held the defects rendered the injunction void and limited the appellate remedy to reversal, dissolution, and remand.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas, a temporary injunction can be lost on appeal even when the underlying facts may support relief if the written order does not strictly comply with Rule 683. Family law lawyers seeking injunctions should ensure the signed order itself states case-specific reasons for irreparable harm and includes a trial setting; lawyers opposing injunctions should check for these facial defects before litigating the merits."
In re Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
COA02
In this original proceeding, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court could extend a CPS dismissal deadline after a monitored return to a parent failed. DFPS filed a Chapter 262 case, the court later ordered a monitored return under Family Code Section 263.403, and after the return failed, the trial court set a new dismissal date under Section 263.403(c). The trial court then later purported to extend that deadline under Section 263.401(b) and reset trial beyond the Section 263.403(c) date. The appellate court analyzed the statutory scheme and held that once a monitored return is ordered and later revoked, Section 263.403(c) controls the operative dismissal deadline. Because Section 263.403 creates its own deadline framework, Section 263.401(b) cannot be used to add another extension after the post-removal deadline has been set. The court conditionally granted mandamus, holding that the extension order was an abuse of discretion and that appeal was inadequate because jurisdiction would be lost automatically if trial did not begin by the Section 263.403(c) deadline.
Litigation Takeaway
"In CPS cases, and in family cases that intersect with them, statutory dismissal deadlines are jurisdictional and cannot be stretched by agreement or routine continuance practice. Once a monitored return fails, immediately recalculate the deadline under Section 263.403(c) and make sure trial starts by that date; if the court sets trial beyond it, preserve the issue and consider mandamus quickly."