Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
667 opinions found
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."
In re Guardianship of Evelyn Ramirez, an Incapacitated Person
COA08
In a contested guardianship “crossover,” the mother (acting pro se) repeatedly filed motions to modify the guardianship and remove the father as guardian. The father moved under Texas Estates Code § 1053.052 for security for costs/fees to deter what he characterized as harassing, repetitive litigation. The probate court did not grant or deny the request; instead it entered a temporary, conditional order abating the security motion for two months and providing that if the mother violated specified conduct restrictions, the abatement would end and she would have to post a $25,000 cash bond. On appeal and in an original mandamus proceeding, the El Paso Court of Appeals applied the probate/guardianship “discrete phase” finality test (Crowson; Matter of Guardianship of Jones) and held the conditional abatement order was interlocutory because it left the security-for-costs issue pending and did not dispose of a discrete phase of the guardianship. The court therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court also denied mandamus relief as moot because the order expired by its own terms (the two-month abatement period had already run), leaving no live controversy for which the court could grant effective relief.
Litigation Takeaway
"Cost-bond motions under Estates Code § 1053.052 can be an effective way to deter vexatious filings in guardianship/family-law crossovers, but orders that merely abate or conditionally defer a bond request are typically not immediately appealable. If you need appellate review of a short-lived, conduct-conditioned order, seek emergency relief (stay/expedited consideration) immediately—otherwise the order may expire and moot mandamus or other challenges."
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."
Vazquez v. Garcia
COA01
In this pro se appeal from a Harris County trial-court judgment, the appellant failed to file an appellate brief by the TRAP 38.6 deadline. After the First Court of Appeals clerk issued a TRAP 38.8 delinquency notice warning that the appeal would be dismissed unless the appellant filed both a brief and a motion for extension within ten days, the appellant filed nothing and did not respond. Applying TRAP 38.8(a) and TRAP 42.3(b)–(c), the court treated the brief as essential to presenting error and held that ignoring the clerk’s notice and missing the cure period constituted want of prosecution and noncompliance with appellate rules/court directive. The court dismissed the appeal (a final disposition under TRAP 43.2(f)) and dismissed any pending motions as moot, leaving the trial-court judgment intact.
Litigation Takeaway
"If a pro se appellant misses the briefing deadline and ignores the court’s TRAP 38.8 delinquency notice, the court of appeals will typically dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution—often without requiring the appellee to spend money on a merits brief. For appellees in family-law cases facing “delay” appeals, closely monitor briefing deadlines and delinquency notices, then push for mandate after dismissal to restore enforceability and finality."
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."
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."
In Re Ray A. Ybarra
COA14
In *In re Ybarra*, the Relator sought a writ of mandamus to compel a Harris County probate judge to rule on several pending motions. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the petition under the standards set by *Walker v. Packer*, which places the burden on the Relator to provide a record sufficient to establish an abuse of discretion. The court found that Ybarra failed to include file-stamped copies of the motions or any evidence—such as correspondence or hearing transcripts—proving the motions were affirmatively called to the trial court's attention. Because the record lacked proof that the motions were properly filed and that the judge had been asked to rule, the court denied the petition.
Litigation Takeaway
"To successfully challenge a trial court's failure to rule on a motion, you must do more than just file the document; you must create a documented 'paper trail' consisting of file-stamped copies and formal requests for a ruling to prove the judge was aware of the motion and refused to act."
In Re Mitchell William Blakeley
COA09
In a divorce and custody dispute, the husband (Relator) sought a writ of mandamus to overturn two trial court orders: one granting the wife interim attorney's fees and another denying his request to designate an expert witness after the deadline. The Ninth Court of Appeals analyzed the case under the strict mandamus standard, which requires showing both a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy through a standard appeal. The court found that the trial court acted within its broad discretion regarding interim fees under the Texas Family Code and that the Relator failed to meet the burden for late expert designation under Rule 193.6. Ultimately, the court held that the Relator failed to demonstrate entitlement to extraordinary relief, denying the petition.
Litigation Takeaway
"Trial courts have vast discretion over temporary orders and discovery schedules; challenging these rulings mid-case via mandamus is extremely difficult unless you can prove the trial court's decision was completely arbitrary or effectively ends your case."
Espinoza v. FGMS Holdings, LLC
COA13
Alberto Espinoza filed a petition to challenge a tax sale of his homestead and submitted a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. Despite this, the trial court ordered him to deposit $60,237.44 into the court registry or face the dismissal of his claims with prejudice. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed Rule 145, which protects indigent parties from "pay-to-play" orders unless the court follows strict procedural safeguards, including conducting an evidentiary hearing and making specific findings regarding the party's actual ability to pay. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to comply with these mandatory procedures and conditionally granted mandamus relief to vacate the order.
Litigation Takeaway
"A trial court cannot force an indigent litigant who has filed a Rule 145 Statement to pay a deposit into the court registry—whether for expert fees, amicus attorneys, or receivers—without first holding a hearing and making specific findings that the party actually has the financial means to pay. If an order lacks these findings or the required notice of the right to challenge, it is a clear abuse of discretion reviewable by mandamus."
In the Interest of P.J.G., A Child
COA13
In this family law case, a father representing himself appealed a court order for child support and custody (SAPCR), claiming he did not consent to the Title IV-D child support system and alleging that federal funding creates a judicial conflict of interest. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(i), which requires a party to provide clear legal arguments supported by relevant authority. The court found that the father's arguments relied on 'sovereign citizen' rhetoric and federal cases that did not support his claims. Because he failed to provide a substantive legal analysis of how the trial court actually erred, the appellate court held that he waived his right to challenge the order and affirmed the lower court's decision.
Litigation Takeaway
"Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys; failing to provide a clear, legally-supported roadmap of trial court errors in an appellate brief will result in a waiver of those claims, regardless of their perceived constitutional importance."