Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
714 opinions found
Prasla Property, Inc., v. Spark Wealth Investments, LLC
COA01
After losing in the trial court, multiple appellants filed a notice of appeal but did not pay the required appellate filing fee and did not file a Rule 20.1 statement of inability to afford costs. The First Court of Appeals clerk issued a deficiency notice warning the appeal would be dismissed unless the fee was paid or indigence established by a deadline. The appellants did nothing. Applying Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 5 (fees), 20.1 (indigence), and 42.3(b), (c) (dismissal for want of prosecution/failure to comply with clerk’s notice), the court treated the nonpayment and nonresponse as abandonment of the appeal and dismissed for want of prosecution; all pending motions were dismissed as moot.
Litigation Takeaway
"An appeal is not “alive” just because a notice of appeal was filed. If the appellant doesn’t timely pay the filing fee or properly claim indigence—and ignores the clerk’s deficiency notice—the court of appeals can dismiss quickly under TRAP 42.3, making the trial court’s order final and enforceable. Appellees should monitor the docket for fee defects; appellants must calendar and cure them immediately."
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."
In The Interest of O.T.D.H.C. and M.E.C. A/K/A M.C., III, Children
COA14
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's order terminating a mother’s parental rights following an investigation that began when she removed her injured child from a hospital against medical advice. The investigation revealed a history of domestic violence, substance abuse (testing positive for cocaine and methamphetamines), and untreated mental health conditions. On appeal, the mother conceded to the predicate finding of endangering conduct, leading the court to focus on the children's best interest. The court held that while the mother had secured housing and employment, her failure to successfully complete drug treatment or address her bipolar disorder and PTSD provided legally and factually sufficient evidence to support termination under the Holley factors.
Litigation Takeaway
"In termination cases, "checking the boxes" by securing a job and a home is often insufficient if a parent fails to complete the "psychological" components of their service plan. Courts prioritize a parent's behavioral stability and the resolution of substance abuse or mental health issues over material gains when determining the best interest of the child."
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."
Alvarez v. State
COA06
In Alvarez v. State, the Sixth Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant's seven-year confinement of a child in a van, which resulted in severe physical stunting and profound developmental delays, supported a conviction for injury to a child. The court analyzed the 'cumulative force' of the evidence, including the child’s lack of education, social isolation, and extreme malnutrition. The court held that such environmental deprivation constitutes both 'serious bodily injury' and 'serious mental deficiency' under the Texas Penal Code, affirming the defendant's first-degree felony conviction because the injuries were a direct result of intentional acts and the omission of necessary care.
Litigation Takeaway
"Severe neglect, educational deprivation, and social isolation can be legally classified as 'serious mental deficiency' and 'serious bodily injury.' This provides a powerful evidentiary framework for family law practitioners to seek the termination of parental rights or secure protective orders by framing 'off-the-grid' isolation not as a lifestyle choice, but as intentional harm."
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 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."
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."
Shamrock Enterprises, LLC d/b/a FRSTeam Gulfcoast/LA v. Top Notch Movers, LLC
Supreme Court of Texas
The Supreme Court of Texas reversed a no-answer default judgment against Shamrock Enterprises, LLC, obtained through Secretary-of-State substituted service, because the face of the record did not demonstrate strict compliance with the forwarding requirements of the Business Organizations Code § 5.253. The forwarding of process was not shown to be sent to the defendant's most recent address on file with the Secretary of State.
Litigation Takeaway
"Texas family law practitioners must ensure strict compliance with statutory forwarding requirements in cases involving default judgments using substituted service. Specifically, for Texas Secretary-of-State service, the record must explicitly show forwarding to the most recent address on file with the Secretary of State, as lacking this can render a default judgment subject to reversal on restricted appeal."
In re David Rogers
Supreme Court of Texas
Mandamus was denied because the relief sought required the Supreme Court to resolve genuinely disputed, material facts, which is generally incompatible with mandamus review. The Court also refused to impose a ministerial duty or find a clear abuse of discretion requiring acceptance of a post-deadline amended filing.
Litigation Takeaway
"Mandamus is not a substitute for proving facts in the trial court, and delay, especially tactical delay after an adverse ruling, can be fatal when asking an appellate court to act quickly. Relators must build a record fast and pursue the correct procedure, including expedited appeal when needed."