Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
Strategy Category
358 opinions found
Ja-Lynn Kuo; JLKUO, PLLC; Subho Mullick; SM ER, PLC; Salima Amina Thobani; and SRG Consulting, LLC v. Regions Bank
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court held that summary-judgment evidence need only be on file at the time of the hearing to be considered under Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c), even if not physically attached to the motion. This decision reversed the court of appeals, which erred by refusing to address evidentiary challenges on forfeiture grounds when the parties agreed the evidence was on file.
Litigation Takeaway
"This opinion emphasizes that documentary evidence relevant in family-law cases, such as business valuations, tax returns, and attorney’s fee affidavits, are considered as long as they are on file and thus supports appellate court's consideration of evidence not physically attached to specific motions. It encourages seeking clarification instead of facing forfeiture if there is any uncertainty regarding on-file documents."
Manohar Singh Mann, Narinder Singh Nagra, and Bhupinder Singh v. Sikh National Center, Inc.
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court denied review of the appellate decision regarding UDJA attorney’s fees, leaving open the question of whether a court lacking jurisdiction may award such fees. Justice Young's concurrence invites future review on the issue.
Litigation Takeaway
"Family law practitioners should be cautious with UDJA fee awards when jurisdiction is contested. Ensure the court's jurisdiction over claims and consider multiple legal theories for fee recovery."
In re Oncor Electric Delivery Co. LLC
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court held that transmission and distribution utilities cannot be alleged to have created or maintained a nuisance as a matter of law. Intentional-nuisance claims against them must be dismissed with prejudice. The Court also held that the pleadings did not sufficiently state gross-negligence claims but allowed plaintiffs to replead those claims with guidance; mandamus relief was conditionally granted.
Litigation Takeaway
"Family-law practitioners must ensure precise pleading in cases involving third-party property damage. The ruling highlights the importance of precise allegations regarding legal duties and warns against reliance on conclusory statements. It emphasizes the strategic use of Rule 91a motions to dismiss legally insufficient claims early, affecting community-property valuations and liability allocations."
Suday v. Suday
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court held that an executor who is the sole beneficiary of an estate may represent the estate pro se, as she is effectively asserting only her personal rights rather than acting in a representative capacity. The decision affects family-law practice, particularly probate, estate administration, and post-decree property disputes intersecting with divorce or partition claims. The Court reversed the court of appeals’ dismissal for want of prosecution and remanded for consideration of the merits.
Litigation Takeaway
"Executors who are the sole beneficiaries can represent the estate pro se in Texas, impacting litigation strategies in probate and family law where the executor's interests align solely with their own. This eliminates an automatic procedural basis for dismissal when counsel withdraws."
In the Interest of N.L.S. and E.J.C., Children
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held that legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Father engaged in conduct that endangered his child’s physical or emotional well‑being under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E). The case is remanded to the court of appeals to address unresolved factual‑sufficiency and best‑interest issues.
Litigation Takeaway
"This opinion reinforces that a coherent, cumulative narrative of risk — including criminal convictions that indicate violence or substance abuse, evidence of recurrent incarceration, and limited or inconsistent parental involvement — can satisfy legal sufficiency under § 161.001(b)(1)(E)."
City of Houston v. Jessica Zuniga
Supreme Court of Texas
The Supreme Court of Texas denied the City of Houston’s petition for review, leaving in place the court of appeals’ conclusion that the City had actual notice under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.101(c), allowing the negligence claim to proceed to the merits. Justice Young emphasized the need for doctrinal clarity regarding actual notice requirements.
Litigation Takeaway
"For family-law practitioners, ensure jurisdictional footing when dealing with governmental entities by serving formal notice within deadlines or proving actual notice through documented evidence. Anticipate jurisdictional pleas and rely on plain statutory language to argue actual notice."
Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in his Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc.
Supreme Court of Texas
The Supreme Court of Texas held the trial court erred in prematurely enjoining the Attorney General from pursuing records and filing a quo warranto action against Annunciation House: The Attorney General has the constitutional authority to file the proposed quo warranto and the injunctions were premature. The court confined its decision to that threshold question and remanded for the litigation to proceed on the merits, leaving open the substantive defenses (including RFRA and constitutional claims).
Litigation Takeaway
"Although this case arises in a civic enforcement context, its procedural and discovery holdings carry immediate implications for family-law practice: (1) courts should be wary of issuing broad pre-filing or precompliance injunctions against statutory investigatory processes absent a developed record; (2) third-party record requests directed at nonprofits, faith-based organizations, or shelters that intersect with family disputes (custody, domestic violence shelters, hidden-asset investigations) require careful navigation of statutory authority, privilege and religious-liberty claims; and (3) the decision underscores the tactical importance of timely legal response, protective orders, and properly framed jurisdictional and constitutional challenges rather than premature summary judgment on facial constitutional grounds."
Abigail Dalila Cerna, as Next Friend of R.W. v. Pearland Urban Air, LLC
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court determined that when a valid arbitration agreement includes a clear delegation clause for questions of scope and arbitrability, the arbitrator should resolve such disputes, not the court. This was applicable even though the incident in question occurred during a separate visit under an agreement executed in August.
Litigation Takeaway
"The ruling highlights the importance for family-law practitioners to distinctly draft arbitration clauses when handling issues such as custody, child support, and property division. Specific delegation clauses can drive the arbitration process, making it imperative to ensure clarity and unmistakable language concerning scope and arbitrator authority."