Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
760 opinions found
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 re Mark Warner
COA05
Relator Mark Warner filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate a trial court's order for sanctions and turnover. The Dallas Court of Appeals denied the petition on two procedural grounds without reaching the merits. First, the court found the relator failed to provide a properly 'sworn or certified' record because his unsworn declaration lacked the specific 'penalty of perjury' language required by Texas law. Second, the court held that because the relator was represented by counsel in the trial court, he was not permitted to file a pro se petition, as Texas law prohibits 'hybrid representation.'
Litigation Takeaway
"Procedural precision is non-negotiable in mandamus proceedings. To avoid summary denial, ensure every document in the record is authenticated with a declaration specifically invoking the 'penalty of perjury' and remember that a represented party cannot 'go rogue' by filing pro se motions or petitions while still appearing through counsel."
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."
Nemarugommula v. VHS San Antonio Partners, LLC
COA04
Dr. Vishal Nemarugommula sought a temporary injunction to prevent Baptist Medical Center from reporting his disciplinary suspension to the Texas Medical Board and the National Practitioner Data Bank, claiming the peer-review process was a 'sham' and reporting would cause irreparable reputational and financial harm. The Fourth Court of Appeals analyzed the requirements for injunctive relief, specifically whether the physician demonstrated a probable right to recovery and irreparable injury. The court held that because an independent fair-hearing panel substantiated the underlying misconduct (unauthorized medical record access), the physician failed to show a probable right to relief, and the hospital's mandatory reporting duties outweighed the physician's claim of reputational damage.
Litigation Takeaway
"In litigation involving high-asset professionals, 'reputational harm' is rarely sufficient to enjoin mandatory reporting of disciplinary actions to licensing boards; courts will prioritize statutory transparency over a litigant's attempt to 'sanitize' their record during a divorce or custody battle."
In re Brandon Charles Cole
COA05
In this original proceeding, Relator Brandon Charles Cole challenged the trial court's denial of his motions to recuse via a petition for writ of mandamus. The Dallas Court of Appeals denied the petition, focusing on two primary issues: procedural non-compliance and the availability of an adequate remedy by appeal. The court found that Cole failed to provide a sworn or certified record as required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3 and 52.7. Substantively, the court held that under Texas Supreme Court precedent, the erroneous denial of a recusal motion does not satisfy the requirements for mandamus relief because the issue can be fully addressed through a direct appeal following a final judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas civil and family law litigation, mandamus is generally unavailable to challenge a trial court's refusal to recuse. Practitioners must focus on meticulously perfecting the appellate record and preserving the bias issue for a post-judgment appeal rather than seeking mid-stream intervention."
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."
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."
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."
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."