Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
760 opinions found
Justin Eugene Howard v. The State of Texas
COA06
In Howard v. State, the Sixth Court of Appeals addressed the requirement for jury unanimity when the State proves multiple distinct criminal acts to support a single charged count. The defendant was convicted of three counts of child sex offenses, but argued on appeal that the jury charge failed to require the jurors to agree on which specific incident formed the basis of the conviction for two of those counts. The court affirmed Count I because the evidence described only one discrete act for that timeframe, making a general unanimity instruction sufficient. However, it reversed Counts II and III, holding that the State's reliance on a 'course of conduct' narrative without a specific-unanimity instruction created a risk of a non-unanimous 'patchwork' verdict, which constituted egregious harm under the Almanza standard.
Litigation Takeaway
"In cases involving 'multiple acts over time'—common in protective orders and SAPCR proceedings—litigators must force the opposing party to identify specific, discrete incidents rather than relying on a generalized course of conduct. Failure to demand this specificity allows a factfinder to reach a 'composite' finding based on different incidents, whereas requiring incident-level clarity creates a stronger record for appeal and prevents relief based on vague, aggregated allegations."
Gary D. Pickens v. City of Greenville, Texas
COA05
In Pickens v. City of Greenville, a plaintiff filed a mandamus action under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) after a city failed to respond to multiple record requests. After the suit was filed, the parties entered into a Rule 11 settlement agreement where the City 'voluntarily' produced the records. The trial court subsequently denied the plaintiff's request for mandatory attorney's fees and dismissed the case as moot. The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that to 'substantially prevail' under Texas Government Code § 552.323(a), a plaintiff must obtain judicially sanctioned relief—such as a court order or judgment—that materially alters the legal relationship between the parties. Because the production was secured via a contract (Rule 11) rather than a judicial mandate, the plaintiff did not meet the prevailing party standard.
Litigation Takeaway
"To recover attorney's fees in a Public Information Act mandamus action, do not accept a 'voluntary' production via a Rule 11 agreement. You must secure a signed court order or an agreed final judgment that explicitly compels the production of documents to ensure your client qualifies as a 'prevailing party.'"
Paredes v. State
COA08
In a prosecution for indecency with a child, the defendant challenged the admission of an unindicted extraneous sexual offense involving the same complainant. The defendant argued the evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403. The El Paso Court of Appeals analyzed the evidence under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.37, which permits propensity evidence in specific child-sex cases, and the Gigliobianco factors for Rule 403 balancing. The court found the evidence was highly probative of intent and propensity and that the State had a significant "need" for the evidence because the defense's strategy centered on attacking the victim's credibility. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence, as its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice or confusion.
Litigation Takeaway
"In cases involving family violence or sexual misconduct where credibility is the central issue, "pattern" evidence of other bad acts is often admissible to rebut claims of fabrication. To win the Rule 403 balancing test, practitioners should emphasize the factual similarities, temporal proximity, and the heightened "need" for such evidence when the opposing party's theme is that the victim is lying or coached."
Jay Morgan v. The State of Texas
COA03
Jay Morgan appealed his conviction for indecency with a child, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing. Morgan’s motion was based on a post-trial affidavit from his ex-fiancée, who claimed she had recanted her incriminating statements to investigators before the trial but was told she did not need to testify. The Third Court of Appeals analyzed whether the affidavit established "reasonable grounds" for relief, concluding it was too conclusory and failed to demonstrate why the evidence could not have been presented at trial with reasonable diligence. The court also held that the complainant’s testimony was legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict, affirming the conviction with a minor clerical modification.
Litigation Takeaway
"A post-trial "recantation" affidavit is not an automatic ticket to a new hearing; to reopen a case or set aside an order, the moving party must show the new evidence is specific, material, and could not have been discovered earlier through reasonable diligence."
In the Interest of K.B., a Child
COA12
In the Interest of K.B., the Twelfth Court of Appeals reviewed the termination of parental rights where the parents challenged the sufficiency of evidence for endangerment and the admission of hearsay statements from the child’s siblings. The court analyzed the 'excited utterance' exception, determining that the siblings' visible distress—including crying and fearful demeanor—was a sufficient foundation for admitting their statements regarding the parents' intoxication. Furthermore, the court found that driving while intoxicated with a child in the vehicle, combined with neglectful physical conditions, provided legally and factually sufficient evidence of endangerment under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1). The court held that the termination was in the child's best interest and affirmed the trial court's decree.
Litigation Takeaway
"Simply 'checking the boxes' of a service plan is insufficient for parents to avoid termination if they fail to acknowledge the underlying issues, such as substance abuse; additionally, visible physical manifestations of a child's stress can provide the necessary predicate to admit hearsay under the excited utterance exception."
Benavidez v. State
COA04
In Benavidez v. State, the defendant was convicted of sexual assault and appealed his sentence on the grounds that the prosecutor improperly commented on his failure to testify by stating he 'couldn’t even take that stand' to take responsibility. The Fourth Court of Appeals analyzed the issue under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1 and the precedent set in Cockrell v. State, which requires a timely objection to preserve error for appellate review. The court held that because the defense failed to object during the closing argument, the complaint was forfeited. Furthermore, the court reaffirmed that Texas no longer recognizes an 'incurable argument' exception, meaning even egregious constitutional violations in jury arguments are waived without a contemporaneous objection.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never rely on the 'incurable' nature of an opponent’s error to save you on appeal; if you do not object to an improper comment during closing arguments—such as a parent’s 'failure to take responsibility' or choice to remain silent—you waive that error entirely. To fully protect the record, you must object timely, request an instruction to disregard, and move for a mistrial."
Ralston v. Ralston
COA07
Two family members, James and Anthony Ralston, were involved in a dispute over the ownership and possession of a residence. After a district court issued a partial summary judgment quieting title in Anthony’s favor and voiding James’s claims, Anthony initiated a forcible detainer (eviction) action in the county court at law. James argued that the county court lacked jurisdiction because the title dispute was still 'active' since the district court's judgment was only partial and not yet final. The Amarillo Court of Appeals affirmed the eviction, holding that once a district court adjudicates title—even through an interlocutory or partial summary judgment—the jurisdictional bar for forcible detainer actions is removed. The court also held that a notice to vacate is not required to be signed to be valid under Texas Property Code § 24.005.
Litigation Takeaway
"In intra-family property disputes, you do not need a final, appealable judgment to begin eviction proceedings; an interlocutory or partial summary judgment from a district court quieting title is sufficient to establish jurisdiction for a forcible detainer action in a lower court."
Pesca Holding LLC v. Skoldeberg
COA04
In Pesca Holding LLC v. Skoldeberg, a jury trial was held regarding alleged fraud in a business sale. Although the defendants prevailed on the liability claims, they failed to include a question about attorney’s fees in the jury charge. The trial court, believing an informal agreement to bifurcate the issues existed, later convened a second jury trial specifically for fees. On appeal, the San Antonio Court of Appeals analyzed whether a party waives attorney's fees by failing to submit them to the initial factfinder. The court held that because attorney’s fees are questions of fact for the jury, they are waived unless the record contains a clear and unambiguous bifurcation agreement, such as a written Rule 11 agreement. Finding no such agreement in the record, the court reversed the $800,000 fee award and rendered a take-nothing judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never rely on an informal or "handshake" agreement to handle attorney’s fees after a jury trial; if the fee question isn't in the jury charge and you don't have a signed Rule 11 agreement to bifurcate, you waive your right to fees the moment the jury is discharged."
In the Matter of the Marriage of Njipwo
COA07
In a Williamson County divorce case, the husband insisted that Cameroon law govern the property division. When the trial court rejected this, the husband explicitly requested on the record to discharge his attorney and signed a handwritten withdrawal order to proceed pro se. The trial court subsequently divided the marital estate based on unsworn property spreadsheets and attorney statements. On appeal, the husband challenged both the withdrawal of his counsel and the evidentiary basis of the property division. The Amarillo Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, holding that the "invited error" doctrine precluded the husband from complaining about a withdrawal he specifically requested. Additionally, the court found that the husband waived any objection to unsworn evidence by failing to object at trial and proceeding on an agreed factual basis.
Litigation Takeaway
"Be cautious when making mid-trial demands; once you explicitly request a procedural change—such as discharging your lawyer—or fail to object to the use of unsworn property summaries, the "invited error" and waiver doctrines may permanently bar you from challenging those issues on appeal."
In re Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.
COA05
In a commercial vehicle accident case, the employer (Old Dominion) challenged a discovery order requiring the production of personnel records for two of the driver's supervisors. Old Dominion argued that because it had stipulated to respondeat superior liability (vicarious liability) and sought bifurcation, the records were irrelevant to the remaining issues. The Dallas Court of Appeals analyzed the request under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.3, finding that because the plaintiff also pleaded direct corporate negligence and gross negligence, the documents—specifically training records, evaluations, and job descriptions—were relevant to proving the company's 'conscious indifference.' The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the order was narrowly tailored, included privacy protections, and sought information relevant to institutional culpability that a vicarious liability stipulation does not resolve.
Litigation Takeaway
"A party's stipulation to one form of liability does not serve as a 'discovery kill switch' for evidence related to other pleaded theories. Narrowly tailored discovery into supervisor training, performance, and knowledge remains discoverable to prove 'conscious indifference' or direct corporate misconduct, even when vicarious liability is conceded."