Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1544 opinions found
Rains County Appraisal District v. Roger and Patricia Martin
COA12
After the Rains County Appraisal District failed to answer a property-tax suit, the trial court entered a no-answer default judgment. The District moved for a new trial, presenting uncontroverted affidavits showing that its chief appraiser mistakenly believed the attorney who handled the preceding administrative proceeding had received and was handling the lawsuit. Applying Craddock, the court of appeals held that this evidence established accident or mistake rather than intentional conduct or conscious indifference. The District also set up a meritorious defense with affidavit-supported facts that could change the extent of the claimed homestead exemption, and the plaintiffs conceded that a new trial would not cause delay or injury. Because all three Craddock elements were met, the appellate court reversed the default judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
Litigation Takeaway
"A party can reopen a no-answer default by promptly presenting specific, credible, and uncontroverted evidence that the failure to answer resulted from a mistaken belief that counsel was handling the case. The motion must also identify legally meaningful defensive facts supported by prima facie evidence, but it need not prove the defense conclusively. In family-law cases, detailed affidavits and corroborating records—not conclusory claims of unfairness—are critical."
Burns v. State
COA09
In Burns v. State, the defendant challenged the admission of silent surveillance footage because the sponsoring officer neither retrieved the recording nor knew how it was obtained, preserved, or transferred to law enforcement. Applying Texas Rule of Evidence 901’s liberal authentication standard, the Ninth Court of Appeals concluded that the officer’s personal familiarity with the traffic stop and recorded location, together with his testimony that the video accurately depicted his observations, provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to find the footage authentic. The State was not also required to call the person who retrieved the video, establish a chain of custody, or prove the recording system’s reliability. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the footage and affirmed the judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"Silent surveillance video can be authenticated by a witness who recognizes the scene and confirms that the footage fairly and accurately depicts what the witness observed—even if that witness did not download, preserve, or transfer the file and did not personally observe every detail captured. In family-law cases involving possession exchanges, residences, businesses, or property, counsel should build the foundation around the witness’s personal familiarity with the scene and connect the footage to the correct event, date, and participants. Authentication does not eliminate separate objections concerning hearsay, completeness, relevance, unfair prejudice, originals or duplicates, editing, or accuracy."
Ramos v. State
COA03
Richard Vincent Ramos appealed his convictions for aggravated sexual assault of his niece, challenging his mother’s testimony recounting the child’s outcry and similar abuse allegations made by the child’s sisters. The Third Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly admitted the victim’s sufficiently specific disclosure under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.072 and properly admitted the sisters’ allegations under article 38.37 after conducting the required hearing; the fact that those allegations were also the subject of pending charges did not create a categorical bar based on the presumption of innocence. The court further held that a criminal fine is part of the sentence and must be orally pronounced in the defendant’s presence. Because the written judgments and bills of costs included a second fine that was not orally imposed, the court deleted that fine and affirmed the convictions as modified.
Litigation Takeaway
"Child-abuse cases require counsel to analyze separately the relevance of the alleged conduct, the witness’s personal knowledge, and the hearsay basis for each child’s disclosure. Although the criminal outcry and extraneous-offense statutes do not govern SAPCRs, sibling-abuse allegations may materially affect conservatorship and access when properly admitted and tied to the subject child’s safety. Practitioners should also compare every signed order with the court’s actual rendition and promptly correct any added, omitted, or altered terms before applicable deadlines expire."
Artz v. State
COA08
After Thomas Blake Artz’s deferred-adjudication community supervision was revoked, the written judgment incorrectly stated that he had pleaded “true” to all seven alleged violations. The reporter’s record showed that he pleaded “not true” to two allegations, “true” to four, and only partially “true” to another. Applying Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b), the court held that it could correct the clerical recital because the appellate record conclusively established the pleas actually entered and no new fact-finding or substantive change to the trial court’s decision was required. Finding no other arguable appellate issue under its independent Anders review, the court modified the judgment to reflect the allegation-specific pleas and affirmed it as modified.
Litigation Takeaway
"A Texas appellate court may modify and affirm a judgment when the signed order inaccurately memorializes something conclusively established by the record. Family-law counsel should compare decrees and orders against the rendition, stipulations, admissions, and reporter’s record; create a precise record of partial or qualified agreements; and request exact corrective language on appeal. Rule 43.2(b) can fix a clerical misstatement, but it cannot supply an omitted ruling, resolve an ambiguous record, or alter the trial court’s substantive decision."
Neville v. State
COA09
Christopher Andre Neville appealed his conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a child, challenging the admission of the child’s outcry evidence, police body-camera footage, a SANE report, testimony about the child’s demeanor, and evidence of domestic violence and conditions in the home. Applying abuse-of-discretion review, the Ninth Court of Appeals analyzed the evidence under the rules governing hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice, and personal knowledge. It concluded that the evidence could explain the investigation, medical examination, child’s fear, and circumstances of disclosure; that each layer of the SANE and recorded statements had to be evaluated separately; and that limiting instructions reduced the risk of improper use. Because the trial court’s rulings fell within the zone of reasonable disagreement, the court affirmed the conviction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Child-abuse evidence must be analyzed statement by statement, not admitted or excluded as a single package. For body-camera recordings, SANE reports, forensic interviews, and third-party accounts, counsel should establish a separate foundation and hearsay pathway for every declarant and layer, articulate any non-hearsay purpose, connect family-violence evidence to a material issue, and seek targeted redactions or limiting instructions. In a SAPCR, counsel should also satisfy Texas Family Code § 104.006 rather than assume that criminal outcry procedures apply."
In re Olsen
COA12
In a post-divorce SAPCR modification, the paternal grandparents intervened seeking sole managing conservatorship after the mother alleged that the children had been in the grandmother’s physical possession for at least six months. The mother later challenged their standing based partly on the 2025 amendment to Texas Family Code § 102.003(a)(9), which added a requirement that a nonparent’s care, control, and possession be exclusive. The Twelfth Court of Appeals held that standing is determined when the intervention is filed. Because the grandparents intervened before the amendment took effect, former § 102.003(a)(9) governed and required six months of actual—but not exclusive—care, control, and possession ending no more than 90 days before filing. The grandparents’ later amended pleading did not restart the standing inquiry, and applying the new exclusivity requirement would improperly give the amendment retroactive effect. The court therefore concluded that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion by refusing to strike the intervention and denied mandamus relief, while emphasizing that standing did not establish the grandparents’ right to conservatorship on the merits.
Litigation Takeaway
"In nonparent-standing disputes, the filing date of the original intervention and the statute’s transition language may be decisive. For interventions filed before the 2025 amendment to § 102.003(a)(9), a grandparent need not prove exclusive care, control, and possession; overlapping parental involvement does not automatically defeat standing. Counsel should also draft modification pleadings carefully because allegations of prolonged grandparent possession or voluntary relinquishment may supply evidence supporting the grandparent’s intervention. Standing only opens the courthouse door—it does not determine conservatorship or the child’s best interest."
Miller v. State
COA12
In Miller v. State, the defendant challenged the admission of generalized domestic-violence testimony offered to explain why the complainant initially said she fell but later reported an assault. Applying Texas Rule of Evidence 702, the court concluded that the expert’s decade of victim-services work, substantial client experience, specialized training, law-enforcement instruction, and prior testimony qualified her despite her lack of an advanced degree or professional license. Her testimony was relevant because it helped the jury understand recantation and inconsistent reporting, and it did not improperly vouch for the complainant because the expert neither evaluated the parties nor opined on credibility. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed the judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"A domestic-violence expert may qualify under Rule 702 through substantial practical experience and focused training, even without advanced academic or clinical credentials. Counsel should connect that experience to the specific behavior requiring explanation and keep the testimony focused on general dynamics—not whether abuse occurred or whether a particular witness is truthful. Challenges are strongest when directed at fit, methodology, scope, or improper credibility opinions rather than credentials alone."
Frank Thomas James Jr. v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice
COA12
An incarcerated plaintiff’s civil action was dismissed for want of prosecution after he did not attend a mandatory dismissal hearing, even though he had timely requested either a bench warrant or permission to appear by Zoom. The Twelfth Court of Appeals held that Rule 165a(1) did not permit dismissal based on his absence when the trial court had ignored his participation request and provided no alternative means, such as videoconference, telephone, or affidavit. Rule 165a(2) was inapplicable because no defendant had appeared, and neither inherent authority nor Chapter 14 could support dismissal because those grounds were not identified in the notice. The court reversed and remanded, holding that although an incarcerated litigant has no absolute right to appear personally, the court must provide an available alternative means of participation if personal attendance is denied.
Litigation Takeaway
"A court should not dismiss an incarcerated party’s claims for nonappearance without first addressing a timely request to participate. Counsel should file a specific written request for remote appearance, telephone access, affidavit testimony, or a bench warrant; obtain an express ruling; and preserve the request in the record. Before seeking dismissal or other dispositive relief, opposing counsel should confirm that no participation request remains unresolved and that every asserted dismissal ground was properly noticed."
Tipton v. State
COA05
In this criminal-law crossover case, defense counsel told the trial court that the defense was “not opposed” to the child complainant testifying by closed-circuit television, and the defense did not object when the testimony was presented. On appeal, the defendant asserted Confrontation Clause and due-process violations because the trial court had not conducted the allegedly required hearing, made necessity findings, or instructed the jury that Texas law authorized the procedure. The Fifth Court of Appeals held that counsel’s affirmative acceptance invited any error, particularly because it caused the State to forgo evidence supporting its request. The failure to object when the child testified also independently forfeited the confrontation complaint under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1, and the unrequested jury-instruction complaint was likewise unpreserved. After rejecting the ineffective-assistance and evidentiary-sufficiency challenges, the court affirmed the conviction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Counsel’s words at trial can determine whether appellate review remains available. An unqualified statement such as “not opposed” or “no objection” may invite error and completely bar a later challenge, while silence when the procedure is implemented may independently forfeit even a constitutional complaint. In family-law proceedings involving remote or child testimony, counsel should state any conditions or reserved objections precisely, request required findings or safeguards, obtain a ruling, and renew the objection when necessary."
In the Matter of F.C.
COA14
After fifteen-year-old F.C. stipulated to evidence supporting three aggravated-assault allegations, the juvenile court committed him to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department for a twelve-year determinate sentence. On appeal, F.C. challenged the findings required by Texas Family Code § 54.04(i)(1), the commitment decision, and the order’s statement of reasons. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals separately reviewed the statutory findings for legal and factual sufficiency and the ultimate disposition for abuse of discretion. Evidence that F.C. committed extraordinarily violent acts, continued using drugs despite electronic monitoring and parental supervision, experienced school and disciplinary problems, and failed to respond adequately to probation and outpatient treatment supported findings that removal was in his best interest, reasonable efforts had been made to avoid removal, and his home could not provide the care and supervision required for probation. The court held that the twelve-year TJJD commitment was within the juvenile court’s discretion, that the disposition order adequately stated its reasons under § 54.04(f), and affirmed the judgments and commitment orders.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a Family Code remedy requires predicate findings, counsel should prove or challenge each finding separately and then address whether the ultimate remedy is a proper exercise of discretion. Build the record with specific, objective evidence of prior interventions, compliance, supervision, treatment, substance use, school performance, and available alternatives—not merely labels or interested-witness testimony. Proposed orders should track every statutory requirement and state case-specific reasons sufficient for appellate review."