Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
667 opinions found
In Re Jose Raquel Lerma
COA13
In this case, the relator sought a writ of mandamus after a trial court failed to rule on several pending motions. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed whether the mere act of e-filing a motion with the clerk's office is sufficient to trigger a judge's ministerial duty to rule. The court held that mandamus relief is unavailable unless the relator provides an evidentiary record proving the trial court was actually aware of the motion and was specifically asked to rule. Because the relator's evidence only showed that the motions were filed and not that they were brought to the judge's personal attention, the court denied the petition.
Litigation Takeaway
"E-filing a motion is not enough to compel a judge to act; you must bridge the "knowledge gap" by providing a documented paper trail—such as letters to the court coordinator or formal requests for a ruling—to prove the trial court was personally notified and failed to rule within a reasonable time."
Messele Kelel v. Dallas Central Appraisal District
COA05
In Messele Kelel v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, a property owner challenged a $74,250 tax valuation, presenting evidence of lower-priced comparable sales and internal settlement offers from the appraisal district as low as $30,000. The trial court granted a 'no-evidence' summary judgment in favor of the appraisal district, effectively dismissing the owner's claims. The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that the owner's evidence—specifically the comparable data and the district's own lower offers—constituted 'more than a scintilla' of evidence. The court held that while this evidence did not prove the property's value as a matter of law, it was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact that must be resolved at trial.
Litigation Takeaway
"To defeat a 'no-evidence' motion for summary judgment regarding property value, you do not always need a formal expert appraisal; even informal evidence like tax records, comparable sales, or internal settlement offers can meet the 'scintilla' threshold to keep your claim alive for trial."
Keenan Deandre Black v. The State of Texas
COA02
In Black v. State, the court addressed a conflict where a trial judge orally waived a $6,000 fine during sentencing, yet the final written judgment still included the charge. Additionally, the defendant argued his probation should not be revoked because his supervision officer had allegedly modified his deadlines. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed the 'Rendition vs. Entry' doctrine, affirming that a judge's oral pronouncement in open court is the legally operative event that controls over a conflicting written document. Furthermore, the court held that community supervision is a judicial order, not a private contract, meaning only a judge—not a probation officer—has the authority to modify its terms. The court modified the judgment to delete the fine but upheld the probation revocation.
Litigation Takeaway
"The judge’s oral ruling from the bench is the ultimate authority; if your written decree contains errors or extra terms not mentioned by the judge, the oral record can be used to fix it. More importantly, never rely on 'side deals' or verbal permission from caseworkers or third parties to deviate from a court order—only a formal, judge-signed modification can legally protect you."
In Re Darren L. Reagan
COA05
Darren L. Reagan filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate a trial court's order granting a Rule 91a motion to dismiss. The Dallas Court of Appeals denied the petition without reaching the substantive legal merits because the relator failed to comply with the technical requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically, the court analyzed the petition's failure to use the verbatim certification language now required by the renumbered Rule 52.3(k) and the failure to provide a sworn or certified record under Rule 52.7(a). The court held that strict adherence to the "exact words" of the appellate rules is a mandatory prerequisite for the court to exercise its jurisdiction for extraordinary relief.
Litigation Takeaway
"Technicalities can defeat even the strongest legal arguments. In the Dallas Court of Appeals, a mandamus petition will be summarily denied if the certification does not match the 2026 version of Rule 52.3(k) word-for-word or if the supporting record is not properly authenticated. Always perform a 'procedural audit' to ensure compliance with the latest appellate rule numbering and verbatim requirements."
Westyn Gregory Whetstone v. The State of Texas
COA07
In Whetstone v. State, a defendant was convicted of Class B misdemeanor criminal trespass, but the trial court's written judgment incorrectly recorded the offense as a more serious Class A misdemeanor involving a habitation. On appeal, the Seventh Court of Appeals performed an independent review of the record and found that the State had explicitly abandoned the higher charge before the jury was instructed. Applying Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b), the court analyzed the discrepancy as a clerical error and held that it had a mandatory duty to reform the judgment to 'make the record speak the truth.' The court modified the judgment to reflect the correct statute and offense degree, ensuring the defendant's criminal history accurately reflected the actual adjudication.
Litigation Takeaway
"Always verify the underlying record of a criminal conviction used in family law litigation; clerical errors can 'inflate' a minor offense into a serious crime, potentially unfairly biasing a judge's decision regarding child custody or parental fitness."
In the Interest of K.L., A Child
COA07
In this parental termination case, a mother appealed a court order terminating her rights after she failed to appear at the final hearing, claiming she lacked actual notice of the trial setting. The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, ruling that the mother waived her due process challenge by failing to raise the issue in the trial court through a motion for new trial. Furthermore, the court held that under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a, notice provided to a party's attorney is legally imputed to the client. The court emphasized that the mother’s specific instructions to her attorney regarding the hearing—given just days prior to the trial—established that she had actual knowledge of the proceeding, thereby satisfying constitutional notice requirements.
Litigation Takeaway
"Notice given to an attorney is legally considered notice to the client; if a party fails to appear for trial, any claim regarding a lack of notice must be preserved in the trial court via a motion for new trial or it will be waived on appeal."
IN RE CHARLES DUSTIN MYERS
COA02
In In re Charles Dustin Myers, the Relator challenged an order from the 322nd District Court of Tarrant County by filing a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion to stay the proceedings. The Second Court of Appeals summarily denied both requests, concluding that the Relator failed to meet the stringent two-prong test required for extraordinary relief: demonstrating a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and proving that no adequate remedy exists through a standard appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, not a secondary appeal; litigants must provide an impeccable record and prove that a trial court’s error is both indisputable and impossible to correct through the normal appeals process."
Caldwell v. Quaid
COA14
In a divorce proceeding involving complex property characterization, the Husband designated an expert for tracing and valuation but failed to provide the actual tracing reports until six days before trial. The trial court excluded the late-disclosed tracing testimony while permitting testimony on the timely-disclosed valuation. On appeal, the Husband argued the exclusion constituted an improper 'death-penalty' sanction. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, clarifying that the exclusion was a mandatory application of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6. The court held that because the ruling did not preclude the Husband's entire defense or claim, it did not rise to the level of a death-penalty sanction and was a proper exercise of discretion due to the lack of good cause or showing of non-prejudice.
Litigation Takeaway
"Discovery deadlines are strictly enforced for expert reports in property disputes; a trial continuance does not automatically reset these deadlines. Practitioners should never use 'to be provided' as a placeholder in expert designations and must produce the substance of tracing opinions within the discovery period to avoid the 'automatic' exclusion of evidence under Rule 193.6."
In the Interest of S.A., A.A., A.L.A., Children
COA13
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights for M.R. and B.J.A. after their three children were found to have suffered severe physical abuse, neglect, and drug exposure. Despite the mother’s technical completion of some service plan requirements, the court found that her failure to secure stable housing, inconsistent visitation, and lack of accountability for the children's injuries—including a fractured tibia and positive drug tests—created a continuing endangering environment. The court held that under the Texas Family Code, the evidence of endangering conduct and environments was clear and convincing, and termination was in the best interest of the children.
Litigation Takeaway
"Simply 'checking the boxes' of a court-ordered service plan is not enough to prevent the termination of parental rights; Texas courts require evidence of actual behavioral change and a demonstrated ability to provide a safe, stable environment."
YOLANDA HERNANDEZ, Appellant v. EKISRA FRED LOUNNARATH AND AMX PCS, INC., Appellee
COA05
When a party fails to appear for trial, leading to a dismissal for want of prosecution, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(3) requires the court to reinstate the case if the failure was due to an 'accident or mistake' rather than 'conscious indifference.' In this case, a law firm missed a trial setting because of a clerical calendaring error and a mistaken belief that a proposed scheduling order would be signed. The trial court denied reinstatement, finding the attorney's reliance on unsigned orders unreasonable. The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that even if an attorney’s mistake is negligent or 'objectively unreasonable,' it does not constitute conscious indifference. As long as the failure to appear was not intentional or a purposeful disregard of the court's authority, the trial court must reinstate the case.
Litigation Takeaway
"A simple clerical error or an 'unreasonable' misunderstanding of a court deadline is sufficient to reinstate a dismissed case, as the law protects litigants from losing their day in court due to an attorney’s non-intentional administrative mistakes."