Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1544 opinions found
Mitchell v. State
COA14
In Mitchell v. State, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly barred cross-examination of the State’s key eyewitness about prior diagnoses of bipolar disorder, ADHD, and major depression because the defense did not show those conditions affected the witness’s perception, memory, or truthfulness at the time of the events. The court treated the issue as one of relevance and evidentiary foundation, not automatic impeachment or unlimited confrontation. Relying on Texas impeachment and confrontation authorities, the court explained that mental-health diagnoses alone do not create admissible credibility evidence; the proponent must establish a concrete nexus between the condition and testimonial reliability. Because the offer of proof showed only diagnostic history, with no demonstrated impact on the witness’s ability to perceive, recall, or testify truthfully, the exclusion was within the trial court’s discretion and did not violate confrontation rights.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-law cases, a mental-health diagnosis by itself is not fair game for impeachment. If you want to use a witness’s depression, bipolar disorder, ADHD, or similar condition to attack credibility, you need evidence tying that condition to perception, memory, narration, or truthfulness at the relevant time; otherwise, expect a relevance and Rule 403 objection to stick."
In the Interest of G.W. and M.W., Children
COA02
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals dismissed Mother’s appeal from an order terminating her rights to only two of three children in a pending SAPCR. Applying Lehmann finality principles, the court examined the live pleadings and record, noted that claims involving the third child and that child’s father remained pending, and found no severance, abandonment, or clear finality language. Because the order resolved fewer than all parties and claims and was not independently appealable under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a), the court held the order was interlocutory and dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"In multi-child or multi-party family cases, do not assume a major ruling is immediately appealable. Before filing a notice of appeal, confirm that every party and claim has been disposed of, or obtain a severance or clear abandonment; otherwise the appeal may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."
In the Interest of K.K., a Child
COA10
In *In the Interest of K.K.*, the Waco Court of Appeals affirmed termination of Mother’s parental rights under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). Mother argued the danger to the child was primarily caused by Father, her brother, and other adults, not by her own conduct. The court rejected that framing and held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient because Mother knowingly exposed K.K. to domestic violence, intoxicated and aggressive adults, unstable housing, and unsafe caregiving conditions, while also becoming severely intoxicated herself and lacking any meaningful safety or housing plan. Applying the clear-and-convincing sufficiency standards from *In re J.F.C.* and *In re C.H.*, the court emphasized that endangerment does not require actual injury and may be shown through a parent’s acts, omissions, and failure to remove the child from known danger. The court held that Mother’s pattern of poor protective choices supported termination under both subsections (D) and (E).
Litigation Takeaway
"A parent cannot avoid endangerment findings by blaming a violent partner, relative, or roommate if the evidence shows the parent knowingly kept the child in that dangerous environment or failed to act. For family-law litigators, the case underscores that pattern evidence—domestic violence exposure, substance abuse, unstable housing, and tolerance of unsafe third parties—can drive not only termination cases but also conservatorship restrictions, supervised access, and emergency custody relief."
In the Interest of B.K.M. and J.J.M.S., Minor Children
COA08
In In re B.K.M., the father filed a modification suit after a prior child-support order naming the maternal grandmother as sole managing conservator was declared void. He sought to recover alleged support overpayments and damages tied to that void order, but the court held that a modification case under the Texas Family Code is limited to changing conservatorship, possession, and support prospectively, not awarding reimbursement or damages for payments made under prior orders unless a separate, properly pleaded cognizable claim supports that relief. The court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to award overpayment reimbursement, and it also upheld the modification order addressing current conservatorship, possession, and child support based on best-interest evidence, the children’s in-camera interview, and the father’s incomplete income proof.
Litigation Takeaway
"Pick the right procedural vehicle and plead the right remedy. A Texas modification suit can fix conservatorship, possession, and support going forward, and may allow arrears recalculation, but it is not a catch-all way to claw back prior child-support payments or seek damages from a void order without an independent, properly pleaded claim."
In re Triple C Project Services, LLC
COA01
In this mandamus proceeding, the First Court of Appeals held that a company’s post-incident witness interview notes and internal meeting minutes were protected as non-core work product under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.5. After a workplace death, the company’s nonlawyer representatives gathered information following OSHA involvement and advice from outside risk and safety professionals, and the company president supplied an uncontroverted declaration showing the investigation was conducted in anticipation of OSHA proceedings and wrongful-death litigation rather than in the ordinary course of business. The court rejected arguments that the materials lost protection because no lawyer created them or because suit had not yet been filed, and it further held the plaintiffs failed to prove substantial need and undue hardship because witness identities and contact information had been produced, some witnesses had already been deposed, and OSHA materials provided alternative sources. The trial court therefore abused its discretion by ordering production, and mandamus relief was conditionally granted.
Litigation Takeaway
"Work product protection is not limited to lawyers. If nonlawyer representatives create witness notes or internal summaries after a triggering event when litigation is substantially likely, those materials can remain protected if the resisting party builds a strong evidentiary record showing anticipation of litigation and not ordinary business practice. On the other side, a party seeking the materials must prove real substantial need and undue hardship—not just that contemporaneous notes would be useful."
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."
Daniel Rincones v. The State of Texas
COA02
In Rincones v. State, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals upheld admission of evidence that the defendant allegedly forced sexual acts on his wife during the same episode as the charged family-violence assault. The defense argued the sexual-assault allegations were uncharged extraneous misconduct and too prejudicial under Texas Rule of Evidence 403. The court treated the evidence as same-transaction contextual evidence because it was intertwined with the assaultive conduct and helped the jury understand the full course of violence, the complainant’s emotional state, and the medical history given for treatment. Applying Rule 403, the court held the evidence’s probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, especially because the State did not overemphasize the sexual allegations and the trial court gave a limiting instruction. The conviction for assault causing bodily injury was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"When sexual coercion or other inflammatory misconduct is part of the same violent episode, courts may admit it if it genuinely helps explain the event rather than simply attacking character. For family-law litigators, the key fight is Rule 403: proponents should frame the evidence as necessary context tied to a live issue like family violence, fear, or danger, while opponents should push for redaction, narrower alternatives, and a record showing the evidence is being used mainly for emotional impact."
In re Makayla Montoya-Frazier and Buckle Bunnies Fund
COA02
In this original proceeding, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a Texas Rule 202 presuit deposition petition without admissible evidence to support Rule 202.4’s required findings. The petitioner relied mainly on a verified petition, briefing, and news articles to justify deposing anticipated defendants and obtaining broad document production, while the respondents offered evidence of burden. The court explained that Rule 202 is an exceptional presuit procedure and that the required findings must be supported by competent evidence—not pleadings, attorney argument, or unauthenticated media materials. Because the targets were anticipated defendants, the Rule 202 order was ancillary and not appealable, so mandamus was the proper remedy. The court conditionally granted mandamus, ordered the trial court to vacate the order granting the petition and deny it, and dismissed the attempted appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Rule 202 is not a shortcut to pre-lawsuit merits discovery. If you want a presuit deposition, especially against an anticipated defendant, you must present admissible evidence showing either that the deposition will prevent a failure or delay of justice or that its likely benefit outweighs its burden. If the other side gets a Rule 202 order without that proof, mandamus may be the fastest and best fix."
In the Interest of O.P.R., A.J.R. and H.T.R., Children
COA05
In this Dallas divorce appeal, the court affirmed a decree giving the parents a 50/50 possession schedule and ordering no child support. Mother argued the trial court should have used a standard or expanded standard possession order and should not have deviated from guideline support. Applying the abuse-of-discretion standard, the court held the trial judge could credit evidence that Father was heavily involved in the children’s daily care, consistently exercised his time, and was the parent the children turned to for comfort, while also considering evidence of Mother’s supervision and medical-judgment lapses, including the peanut-allergy incident. Because the record supported the best-interest finding for equal possession, the court also held the trial court acted within its discretion in deviating from guideline child support and ordering that neither parent pay support. The court rejected Mother’s remaining procedural and constitutional complaints and affirmed the decree in full.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you want 50/50 possession and no child support in a Texas family case, win it with detailed best-interest evidence about actual caregiving, availability, supervision, and how the schedule works in real life. On appeal, these rulings are highly deferential, so trial-level record building, damaging admissions, and error preservation usually decide the case."
In the Matter of the Marriage of Kara Bagley and Jason Bagley and in the Interest of J.B. and K.B., Children
COA12
In Bagley, the Tyler Court of Appeals reversed a child-support award because the trial court set Jason Bagley’s net monthly resources at $7,237.18 without any evidence of his actual income. The record showed only that he was employed and paid certain expenses, but it did not include pay stubs, tax returns, employer records, or testimony quantifying wages or other income under Texas Family Code § 154.062. The court held that monthly expenses and isolated payments cannot be used to reverse-engineer net resources. It distinguished cases allowing expense evidence to impeach reported income when actual income evidence already exists, and concluded that using expenses as a substitute for statutory resource proof was an abuse of discretion. The child-support portion of the decree was reversed and remanded.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not expect a court to infer child-support income from lifestyle or expense evidence alone. To support a guideline award, put actual § 154.062 resource evidence in the record—or expressly proceed under the minimum-wage presumption in § 154.068 if income proof is unavailable."