Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
Strategy Category
358 opinions found
In Re Fariborz Shojai
COA14
After an amended final judgment was issued, the trial court exercised its plenary power to grant a motion for a new trial and expunge a notice of lis pendens, which had previously secured real property interests. The Relator sought a writ of mandamus, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by restarting the litigation and removing property protections. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the petition under the high bar for mandamus relief, noting that trial courts possess broad inherent authority to set aside judgments. The court held that the Relator failed to prove a clear abuse of discretion or the lack of an adequate remedy by appeal, thereby denying the petition and leaving the new trial order in place.
Litigation Takeaway
"A trial court’s discretion to grant a new trial is nearly absolute, and overturning such an order via mandamus is exceptionally difficult. If a court vacates your judgment and expunges a lis pendens, you must immediately seek temporary orders or an injunction to prevent the dissipation of real estate assets during the "gap" before the second trial."
Mengistu Taye v. 3000 Sage Apartments
COA14
In Taye v. 3000 Sage Apartments, the appellant challenged a trial court's denial of a motion to 'seal or redact' sensitive data within court records. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the distinction between Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a, which governs the sealing of entire court records, and Rule 21c, which governs the redaction of specific sensitive data points like Social Security numbers and bank accounts. The court found that while Rule 76a specifically authorizes an immediate interlocutory appeal, Rule 21c does not. Applying a substance-over-form analysis, the court determined the appellant was seeking redaction rather than sealing. Consequently, the court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal because the order was neither a final judgment nor a statutorily authorized interlocutory appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"Labeling a motion as a 'Motion to Seal' will not grant you an automatic right to an interlocutory appeal if the substance of your request is merely the redaction of sensitive data under Rule 21c. To preserve the right to an immediate appeal regarding privacy, practitioners must strictly comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 76a; otherwise, the only path for immediate appellate relief is the significantly higher burden of a Petition for Writ of Mandamus."
GUARDIANSHIP OF ANGIE COOPER
COA14
In Guardianship of Angie Cooper, the appellant attempted to challenge a trial court's order but filed the notice of appeal 110 days after the judgment was signed. Because the appellant did not file any post-judgment motions, such as a motion for new trial, the law required the appeal to be filed within 30 days. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the strict jurisdictional requirements of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and 26.3, noting that even with the 'implied' 15-day grace period, the filing was months late. The court held that timely filing is a jurisdictional prerequisite and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Appellate deadlines in Texas are a 'jurisdictional cliff.' If you miss the 30-day window (or the final 45-day Verburgt grace period) to file your notice of appeal, the appellate court loses the power to hear your case entirely, regardless of the merits. Always calendar deadlines from the date of the judge's signature and use post-judgment motions strategically to extend your time to appeal."
Patriot Power Group, LLC v. Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd.
COA08
In Patriot Power Group, LLC v. Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd., the parties entered into a service agreement containing an arbitration clause that incorporated the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Rules. When a dispute arose, Fasken challenged the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, citing a lack of mutuality and failure to satisfy conditions precedent. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration. The Eighth Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the express incorporation of AAA Rules constitutes "clear and unmistakable" evidence that the parties intended to delegate threshold questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. The court reasoned that because the challenges were directed at the agreement as a whole rather than the delegation clause specifically, the arbitrator—not the trial court—must decide issues of validity and enforceability.
Litigation Takeaway
"Including "boilerplate" references to AAA or JAMS rules in a prenuptial or mediated settlement agreement effectively strips the trial court of its power to determine if the agreement is valid; instead, any challenge to the contract's enforceability will be decided by a private arbitrator rather than a judge in a public courtroom."
CHI ST. LUKE’S HEALTH-THE VINTAGE HOSPITAL v. RICHARD AURISANO
COA14
In CHI St. Luke’s Health-The Vintage Hospital v. Aurisano, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed the legal adequacy of expert reports under the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). The hospital challenged a plaintiff's medical expert reports, arguing they were "conclusory" because they failed to explain the causal link between the hospital's alleged negligence and the patient's injuries, including a fall and bed sores. The court analyzed the reports using the "how and why" framework, which requires experts to provide a transparent analytical bridge showing how a specific breach of care was a substantial factor in causing the harm. The court held that because the expert failed to provide a factual explanation linking the hospital's conduct to the injuries—leaving the trial court to fill in the blanks with inferences—the reports were legally insufficient. The court reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss and remanded the case.
Litigation Takeaway
"To survive a challenge, an expert report must provide an "analytical bridge" that explains the 'how and why' behind a conclusion. In family law—whether dealing with custody evaluations, capacity assessments, or business valuations—practitioners must ensure that experts do not simply state a result but instead provide a transparent, fact-based path from the breach or behavior to the specific outcome or recommendation."
Jarven Roberson v. The State of Texas
COA07
Appellant Jarven Roberson appealed the trial court's decision to adjudicate his guilt for third-degree felony assault family violence involving strangulation after he violated the terms of his deferred adjudication community supervision. The Seventh Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record under the Anders standard to determine if any non-frivolous grounds for appeal existed. The court found that because Roberson admitted to violations and the eight-year sentence was within the legal statutory range, there was no reversible error. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Litigation Takeaway
"The shift from deferred adjudication to a final felony conviction for domestic violence is a critical turning point in custody litigation. A final judgment of guilt for strangulation triggers mandatory statutory presumptions against joint managing conservatorship under Texas Family Code § 153.004 and may provide grounds for the termination of parental rights if the resulting incarceration exceeds two years."
Kadericka LaQuine Washington v. The State of Texas
COA14
In Washington v. State, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed a trial court's decision to adjudicate guilt and impose a fifteen-year sentence on an appellant who violated the terms of her deferred adjudication. The appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding new law violations, including an aggravated assault. The appellate court analyzed the case under the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, noting that the State only needs to prove a single violation to support a revocation. Holding that the trial court is the sole judge of witness credibility, the court affirmed the judgment because the greater weight of the credible evidence supported the finding that the appellant committed the assault.
Litigation Takeaway
"The 'preponderance of the evidence' standard used in criminal revocations is the same standard used in family court for protective orders and custody determinations involving family violence. Because proving just one violation is enough to succeed, strategic litigation in one arena can create a 'checkmate' in the other, effectively leveraging criminal misconduct to secure favorable results in high-conflict family law disputes."
In The Interest of O.T.D.H.C. and M.E.C. A/K/A M.C., III, Children
COA14
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's order terminating a mother’s parental rights following an investigation that began when she removed her injured child from a hospital against medical advice. The investigation revealed a history of domestic violence, substance abuse (testing positive for cocaine and methamphetamines), and untreated mental health conditions. On appeal, the mother conceded to the predicate finding of endangering conduct, leading the court to focus on the children's best interest. The court held that while the mother had secured housing and employment, her failure to successfully complete drug treatment or address her bipolar disorder and PTSD provided legally and factually sufficient evidence to support termination under the Holley factors.
Litigation Takeaway
"In termination cases, "checking the boxes" by securing a job and a home is often insufficient if a parent fails to complete the "psychological" components of their service plan. Courts prioritize a parent's behavioral stability and the resolution of substance abuse or mental health issues over material gains when determining the best interest of the child."
In Re Marcus Tyrone Grant
COA14
In this proceeding, Relator Marcus Tyrone Grant sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Waller County Clerk to perform specific ministerial actions. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed its own subject-matter jurisdiction under Texas Government Code § 22.221, which lists the specific judicial officers subject to the court's original jurisdiction. The court observed that county clerks are not included in this statutory list. While the court has 'ancillary' jurisdiction to issue writs necessary to protect its own appellate power, the Relator failed to demonstrate that the clerk’s inaction interfered with a pending appeal. Consequently, the court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a court clerk refuses to perform a duty, such as issuing a citation or filing a record, you generally cannot seek immediate relief from the Court of Appeals. Unless the clerk's failure to act is actively blocking an ongoing appeal, the proper route is to file a mandamus petition against the clerk in a District Court. Filing in the wrong forum results in dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, wasting both time and legal fees."
In Re Dolcefino Communications, LLC d/b/a Dolcefino Media
COA14
In a divorce action between Jay Keith Sears and Debra Louise McLeod, Dolcefino Media intervened to challenge a four-year-old 'Agreed Sealing Order.' The trial court refused to unseal docket entries and reporter's records without providing a specific legal or factual basis for the continued sealing. On mandamus review, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the common law right of public access, which presumes court records are open unless a court balances competing interests and articulates specific reasons for closure on the record. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to perform this balancing test or 'show its work,' and it conditionally granted mandamus relief requiring the trial court to vacate its order and perform the necessary analysis.
Litigation Takeaway
"Agreed sealing orders are not bulletproof; to protect sensitive divorce records from media intervention, counsel must ensure the trial court record includes specific evidence of harm and a clear balancing of interests to justify continued privacy."