Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1544 opinions found
In re Vilde
COA05
Ricmonds Vilde sought habeas relief from a contempt judgment imposing confinement, along with an emergency stay and release on bond. After he was released, the Fifth Court of Appeals held that Texas Government Code § 22.221(d) and contempt-habeas precedent required a present restraint or another continuing live controversy; Vilde established neither. The court dismissed the habeas petition for want of jurisdiction, denied the emergency motion as moot, and refused to recast the proceeding as mandamus because a contempt order involving confinement must be challenged by habeas corpus.
Litigation Takeaway
"Move immediately when challenging contempt confinement. Release ordinarily moots habeas relief unless counsel proves a continuing restraint or other live controversy, and mandamus cannot be used to revive review of a confinement-based contempt order after habeas becomes moot."
Sanchez v. Sanchez
COA06
Nohemi Sanchez obtained a two-year family-violence protective order against Rodolfo Perez Sanchez based on testimony that he repeatedly physically and sexually assaulted her, violated restrictions on contact and access to the marital residence, and exposed their children to the violence. The Sixth Court of Appeals held that her detailed testimony, considered with the evidence of criminal charges, bond conditions, and subsequent prohibited conduct, was legally and factually sufficient under Texas Family Code § 81.001. The trial court was entitled to credit Nohemi’s account over Perez’s denials, and her affidavit of non-prosecution, financial dependence, attempted reconciliation, and later communications affected credibility and weight rather than conclusively disproving abuse. Because the children witnessed the violence and reacted with fear, the court also upheld their inclusion as protected persons and the supervised-possession restrictions. Perez waived his complaint about the specificity of the trial court’s findings, and the protective order was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Detailed, credible testimony can support a Texas family-violence protective order even without a criminal conviction, medical records, or photographs. An applicant’s later reconciliation, continued contact, or affidavit of non-prosecution does not necessarily defeat the case; those facts generally go to credibility, which appellate courts leave to the trial judge. Evidence that children witnessed domestic violence can also justify protecting them and restricting possession, even if they were not directly assaulted. Parties must strictly preserve complaints about inadequate findings for appeal."
In re Trumble
COA06
After an agreed divorce decree required Donald Trumble to pay his former wife’s health-insurance premiums for fifteen years and maintain life-insurance coverage, the trial court held him in contempt and conditioned suspended confinement partly on payment of the health-insurance arrearage and future premiums. The Sixth Court of Appeals held that the health-insurance obligation, which arose from the parties’ property settlement and did not qualify as statutory spousal maintenance, was a contractual debt. Under Texas Family Code § 9.012 and article I, section 18 of the Texas Constitution, payment of that debt could not be enforced through contempt or confinement. The court also held that permitting substitute life-insurance coverage clarified rather than modified the decree and that the trial court retained authority to consider the challenge to its contempt order despite expiration of ordinary plenary power. It conditionally granted mandamus relief in part and directed relief from the void health-insurance contempt provision.
Litigation Takeaway
"Before seeking contempt to enforce a divorce decree, classify the obligation by its substance, not its label. A former spouse’s contractual obligation to pay health-insurance premiums as part of a property settlement is a debt—not statutory maintenance—and may be enforced through a money judgment and lawful collection remedies, but not incarceration. Parties defending against debt-based contempt should raise Texas Family Code § 9.012 and the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt and consider mandamus when no confinement has occurred."
McFarlane v. State
COA02
After Shawn McFarlane violently assaulted his mother and took her property, a jury convicted him of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated assault of a family member, and family-violence assault. The Second Court of Appeals held that testimony explaining how the parties came to live together was relevant relationship evidence under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.371; remoteness alone did not make it irrelevant, and any error was harmless. But because the aggravated-robbery and aggravated-assault counts, as charged and proved, punished the same assaultive conduct and bodily injury, the dual convictions violated double jeopardy. The violation was apparent on the record and reviewable despite the lack of a trial objection. The court reversed the aggravated-robbery conviction and affirmed the aggravated-assault conviction carrying the greater punishment, along with the remaining convictions.
Litigation Takeaway
"Relationship-history evidence can provide admissible context for intrafamily violence, but counsel should still prepare for relevance, Rule 403, character-evidence, and hearsay objections. In family cases, independently prove the underlying violent conduct and tie it to conservatorship, possession, protective relief, or property issues; do not treat a conviction vacated on double-jeopardy grounds as an existing conviction. Criminal counsel should also compare overlapping counts as charged and proved because concurrent sentences do not cure multiple punishments for the same conduct."
Miller v. State
COA03
After Ryan David Miller’s truck left a rural road and struck a tree, officers observed beer containers, smelled alcohol, and learned that he was the sole occupant and driver. The State obtained hospital blood-alcohol records through a grand-jury subpoena, and Miller sought to suppress them as the product of an unlawful fishing expedition and defective subpoena process. The Third Court of Appeals held that the crash, odor of alcohol, open container, and Miller’s connection to the vehicle supplied specific, articulable facts supporting a DWI investigation. Because the blood was drawn and tested for medical treatment, Miller had no Fourth Amendment interest preventing disclosure of the results through valid grand-jury process; HIPAA permitted disclosure in response to qualifying legal process, and Miller failed to overcome the subpoena’s presumption of regularity. With no constitutional or statutory violation, article 38.23(a) did not require suppression, and the court affirmed the judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"Medical confidentiality is not absolute, but family-law counsel cannot use grand-jury authority to bypass civil discovery protections. When intoxication or similar conduct bears on conservatorship, possession, or child safety, seek narrowly tailored medical evidence through HIPAA-compliant civil process, address privilege and protective-order concerns, and coordinate with criminal counsel. A challenge to records obtained in a related criminal case should identify a specific defect in the legal process; generalized privacy objections are unlikely to suffice."
Carrion v. State
COA11
In this aggravated-assault prosecution, John Anthony Carrion claimed self-defense after stabbing his longtime partner, while she testified that he initiated the attack following a dispute about their volatile relationship. The Eleventh Court of Appeals held that the jury could reject self-defense based on the parties’ accounts, the number and location of the complainant’s wounds, Carrion’s control of the knife, and other physical evidence. It also held that Texas Rule of Evidence 403 did not require exclusion of prior violent altercations because the relationship history was highly probative of the charged assault and the competing narratives, and that value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. The court affirmed the conviction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Prior incidents of partner violence may be admitted when they provide necessary context for a disputed confrontation, credibility determination, claim of self-defense, or family-violence issue. The proponent should identify a specific non-propensity purpose and explain the evidence’s probative value; the opponent must identify a concrete Rule 403 danger that substantially outweighs that value, while preserving separate objections involving character evidence, hearsay, authentication, remoteness, or cumulative proof."
Molina v. State
COA11
Ricardo Molina Jr. challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his indecency-with-a-child convictions, arguing that the child’s delayed disclosure, alleged inconsistencies, and lack of corroboration undermined proof of sexual intent. Applying Jackson v. Virginia, the Eleventh Court of Appeals held that the jury could infer intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire from Molina’s intimate touching, sexual statements, isolation of the child, and instruction to keep the incident secret. Because the complainant was under seventeen when the offenses occurred, Article 38.07 did not require corroboration of her testimony. The court treated Molina’s denial and credibility attacks as matters for the jury and affirmed the judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"A child’s admissible testimony can carry substantial evidentiary weight even without physical evidence, an eyewitness, or an immediate disclosure. In family-law abuse disputes, counsel should focus on competency, admissibility, authentication, consistency of core details, surrounding circumstances, and the connection between the evidence and the specific statutory relief sought. Delayed disclosure and competing accounts generally affect credibility and weight rather than creating a categorical corroboration requirement, although Article 38.07 and the Jackson criminal-review standard do not directly govern civil family-law cases."
Maya Management Group LLC v. Chapman
COA02
After Vanessa Chapman obtained a no-answer default judgment against Maya Management Group for a store slip-and-fall, Maya challenged the unliquidated damages in a restricted appeal. The court held that the default admitted properly pleaded liability facts but did not establish that the fall caused Chapman’s medical expenses or noneconomic injuries. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 243, affidavits showing that medical services and charges were reasonable and necessary did not prove causation, and the record contained no competent evidence supporting pain and suffering, mental anguish, or physical impairment. The court affirmed liability, reversed the damages award, and remanded for a proceeding limited to causation and the amount of damages.
Litigation Takeaway
"A default is not a blank check. Even when liability is admitted, the party seeking unliquidated relief must offer competent, category-specific evidence connecting the actionable conduct to each claimed loss. In family-law default prove-ups, counsel should independently prove property values, reimbursement or fraud losses, attorney’s fees, tort damages, and all required best-interest or statutory findings—and ensure every referenced exhibit is actually admitted."
In the Interest of E.J., a Child
COA11
The Department sought termination after E.J. and his mother tested positive for drugs and the mother later demonstrated a recurring pattern of methamphetamine use, missed testing and visits, unstable housing and employment, and interrupted communication. Applying the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard and the nonexclusive Holley best-interest factors, the Eleventh Court of Appeals considered the mother’s recent sobriety, counseling, sober-living participation, and substantial service-plan completion but held that the trial court could weigh those late improvements against her history of relapse and instability, her attendance at only about 40% of visits, and the uncertainty of her proposed placement. Because E.J. was thriving and bonded in a long-term foster home whose family planned to adopt him, the court held the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2). It also upheld the findings that the Department made reasonable reunification efforts and that continuing danger prevented E.J.’s return, affirming the termination order.
Litigation Takeaway
"Termination cases turn on sustained, verifiable change—not merely technical service-plan compliance or a short period of sobriety before trial. A parent opposing termination should prove durable sobriety outside a structured setting, consistent visitation, verified child-ready housing and employment, and a practical reunification plan. Counsel seeking termination should present a chronological record connecting relapse, disengagement, and instability to the child’s need for safety and permanence."
In re John Constantine
COA03
Natalie Arriaga sought discovery of John Constantine’s net worth to support exemplary damages on gross-negligence and negligent-entrustment claims arising from a motor-vehicle accident involving Constantine’s babysitter. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 41.0115 permits such discovery only when submitted evidence supports a reasonable finding that the claimant is substantially likely to prevail on the exemplary-damages claim. Although Constantine knew the driver previously had suffered a stroke, the record showed that the driver had a valid unrestricted license, had driven without prior accidents or citations, and reportedly had been medically cleared to drive. Because there was no evidence that Constantine actually recognized a serious risk and proceeded with conscious indifference—the subjective element of gross negligence—the Third Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by authorizing and compelling net-worth discovery. It conditionally granted mandamus relief and directed the trial court to vacate the challenged orders.
Litigation Takeaway
"A request for exemplary damages does not automatically permit discovery of an opposing party’s net worth. The requesting party must submit evidence supporting a substantial likelihood of proving every required element, including the applicable culpable mental state; pleadings, proof of an accident, and evidence of ordinary negligence are insufficient. In family cases involving joined tort or third-party claims, counsel should distinguish ordinary financial discovery for property or support issues from net-worth discovery governed by § 41.0115, insist on a written finding and the least burdensome discovery method, and consider mandamus before sensitive financial information is disclosed."