Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
667 opinions found
Golden Eagles USA INC., Appellant v. Steam Logistics, LLC, Appellee
COA01
In Golden Eagles USA Inc. v. Steam Logistics, LLC, the appellant failed to file its opening brief by the deadline and also failed to file a motion for extension. After the deadline passed, the First Court of Appeals issued a delinquency notice warning that the appeal would be dismissed unless the appellant filed a brief or an extension request within ten days. The appellant still did nothing. Applying Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b) and (c) (involuntary dismissal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with appellate rules/court notice) and entering judgment under TRAP 43.2(f), the court held the appellant abandoned the appeal and dismissed it for want of prosecution without reaching the merits; any pending motions were dismissed as moot.
Litigation Takeaway
"Appellate rights can be lost by silence: missing the briefing deadline—and then ignoring the clerk’s TRAP 42.3 notice—can end the appeal permanently, leaving the trial court’s custody/property/support rulings intact and immediately enforceable. Calendar briefing and extension deadlines with redundancy; if you’re the appellee, monitor the docket and let the rules work when the appellant fails to prosecute."
Ronald L. Crawford, Jr., Appellant v. Yasser Aftab Sharif, Appellee
COA01
In a post-foreclosure eviction (forcible detainer), the occupant argued the foreclosure sale was fraudulent and that the trial court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the case necessarily involved title. The First Court of Appeals rejected that argument, explaining that Texas justice courts (and county courts on de novo appeal) have jurisdiction to decide only the right to immediate possession, not title, and that a challenge to foreclosure validity does not defeat jurisdiction unless possession and title are so intertwined that possession cannot be decided without first adjudicating title. Because the purchaser presented proof of the foreclosure purchase and notice to vacate, and the occupant did not show the title issues were inseparable from possession (and provided no reporter’s record), the courts could decide possession independently. The court affirmed the judgment awarding possession (and, given the absent record, presumed the evidence supported damages and attorney’s fees as well).
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas, you usually can’t stop an eviction by attacking the underlying foreclosure or transfer: forcible detainer is about immediate possession, not who ultimately owns title. For family-law “holdover spouse” situations, use justice-court eviction when a decree/transfer document provides an independent right to possession (often via tenancy-at-sufferance language), and don’t expect a separate title/decree attack to automatically stall removal."
Owens v. Johnson
COA01
In Owens v. Johnson, a military service member sought to reduce his child support payments, claiming his income had decreased due to changes in his service status and a significant increase in insurance costs. Despite his testimony, he failed to provide official financial documentation, such as Leave and Earnings Statements (LES), to support his claims. The trial court chose to credit the mother's testimony and disbelieve the father's uncorroborated assertions, setting a higher support amount and confirming child support arrears. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, emphasizing that trial judges are the sole judges of witness credibility and that a party's self-serving testimony can be disregarded if it lacks objective corroboration.
Litigation Takeaway
"When seeking to modify child support, testimony is not a substitute for a paper trail. If you claim a decrease in income but fail to produce readily available financial records like pay stubs or tax returns, the court has the discretion to completely disregard your testimony and maintain your current support obligations."
In the Matter of the Marriage of Brittany Lea Lannen and Clint Douglas Lannen
COA10
Years after her divorce, Brittany Lannen sought a declaratory judgment to determine if her ex-husband's 'right to purchase' specific real estate—a provision included in their 2014 divorce decree—was still valid or had been waived. The trial court dismissed her suit, agreeing with the husband's argument that the lawsuit was an impermissible 'collateral attack' on a final judgment. On appeal, the Waco Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal. The court analyzed the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) and concluded that because the decree incorporated a settlement agreement 'enforceable as a contract,' the UDJA was the proper procedural tool to interpret the parties' legal rights. The court held that seeking to construe the meaning or validity of a contract within a decree is not an attempt to overturn the judgment, but rather a request for the court to define the current legal status of those provisions.
Litigation Takeaway
"If your divorce decree incorporates a settlement agreement as an enforceable contract, you can use the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act to clarify or interpret its terms years later. This allows parties to resolve disputes over property rights—like purchase options or rights of first refusal—without being barred by rules that usually prevent people from 'attacking' final judgments."
MARVIN LEE JONES, Appellant v. ARLINGTON PLACE APARTMENTS, Appellee
COA14
In this appeal, the appellant contested the court reporter's notice that no record existed, prompting the appellate court to abate the case for an evidentiary hearing. After the trial court confirmed that no reporter's record was ever made, the appellate court reinstated the case and set a strict briefing deadline. Despite being granted an extension, the appellant failed to file a brief. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b), holding that the failure to prosecute the appeal after the record's status was resolved required a dismissal of the case.
Litigation Takeaway
"A "missing" reporter’s record is not a permanent shield against deadlines; once a trial court determines a record does not exist, you must immediately pivot to a legal strategy based on the Clerk's Record or face a dismissal for want of prosecution."
Ougo Menchaca Vela v. The State of Texas
COA13
In this criminal appeal, Appellant Ougo Menchaca Vela challenged his conviction and twenty-year sentence for indecency with a child. His court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal was frivolous and presented no arguable grounds for reversal. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the entire record, including the jury's verdict and the legality of the sentence, as required by Texas appellate standards. The court concluded that there were no procedural or substantive errors and affirmed the trial court's judgment while granting counsel's motion to withdraw.
Litigation Takeaway
"An Anders affirmance of a criminal conviction for a sexual offense against a child provides the necessary finality to trigger mandatory termination grounds and conservatorship restrictions under the Texas Family Code. For family law practitioners, this opinion eliminates a respondent's ability to stay civil proceedings pending appeal, allowing for immediate summary judgment on predicate grounds like TFC § 161.001(b)(1)(L)."
In The Interest of G.M.D. & V.D., Children And In The Interest of Z.J.M., A Child
COA01
In this termination of parental rights case, a mother appealed the trial court's decision to end her legal relationship with three of her children following a history of chronic substance abuse and mental health crises. The mother challenged only one of the five legal grounds (predicate acts) cited by the trial court for termination. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, explaining that under Texas law, an appellant must challenge every predicate ground found by the trial court; otherwise, the unchallenged grounds stand as sufficient. The court then applied the 'Holley' factors to the evidence—including the mother's history of heroin and methamphetamine use and the children's success in stable foster placements—and concluded that termination was clearly in the children's best interest.
Litigation Takeaway
"When appealing a termination of parental rights, it is a procedural necessity to challenge every single 'predicate ground' listed in the trial court's order; failure to contest even one ground can result in an automatic loss on that portion of the appeal. Additionally, historical evidence of substance abuse and mental health instability continues to be a primary driver in 'best interest' determinations by Texas courts."
Jennifer Jo Stricker v. The State of Texas
COA05
In Stricker v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals addressed a trial court's exclusion of a public spectator during jury selection due to a large venire panel filling the courtroom. The appellate court analyzed the closure under the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, applying the four-prong Waller v. Georgia test. Because the trial court failed to consider reasonable alternatives to accommodate the spectator or make specific findings on the record justifying the closure, the court held that the exclusion constituted a structural error. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial without the need for a showing of actual harm.
Litigation Takeaway
"Limited seating or a crowded gallery is not a valid legal reason to exclude public spectators from a jury trial; doing so without specific constitutional findings creates a 'structural error' that can automatically void your entire case on appeal regardless of the evidence."
In the Interest of G.M.D. & V.D., Children and In the Interest of Z.J.M., A Child
COA01
The First Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's decision to terminate a mother’s parental rights to her three children. The case centered on the mother's long history of heroin addiction and untreated mental health crises, including a suicide attempt occurring while the children were present. In its analysis, the appellate court first determined that because the mother failed to challenge every legal "predicate ground" cited by the trial court in her appeal, those unchallenged findings became binding. Furthermore, applying the 'Holley' factors, the court found that the mother's recurring drug relapses and mental instability posed a significant danger to the children, making termination necessary for their safety and best interests.
Litigation Takeaway
"When appealing a termination of parental rights, an appellant must challenge every individual predicate ground found by the trial court; failing to contest even one ground can lead to an automatic affirmance. Additionally, evidence of chronic substance abuse and untreated mental illness remains a powerful factor in establishing that termination is in a child's best interest."
ATC Indoor DAS LLC v. MM CCM 48M Leasing, LLC and MM CCM 48M, LLC
COA05
A commercial tenant sued its landlord for breaching a long-term lease after the landlord bought a distressed shopping mall and unilaterally terminated the lease to close and redevelop the property. The landlord obtained summary judgment by asserting the affirmative defense of commercial impracticability, arguing the lease’s “basic assumption” (a functioning mall with patrons) had failed. The Dallas Court of Appeals applied Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 261 as used in Texas: impracticability requires an event that makes performance objectively impracticable, the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract, and the event must be unforeseeable. The court emphasized that impracticability is not mere unprofitability and focused on foreseeability: the landlord purchased the mall as a distressed property intending redevelopment, making closure and demolition foreseeable (and effectively self-created). Because the closure was not an unforeseeable event and did not render performance objectively impossible, the defense failed. The court reversed the summary judgment, rendered judgment that the landlord breached the lease, and remanded for determination of damages and attorney’s fees.
Litigation Takeaway
"“My business failed” or “the deal stopped making economic sense” is usually not a legal excuse to dodge a settlement or property-division obligation. To prove impracticability under Texas law, the obligor must show a truly unforeseeable event that makes performance objectively impossible—not merely financially painful or unprofitable—especially where the risk was known, foreseeable, or the hardship was the party’s own strategic choice."