Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
714 opinions found
4 Families of Hobby, LLC, 4 Families of Houston, LLC, and Pappas Restaurants, Inc. v. City of Houston, Texas
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court determined that the plaintiffs deserved jurisdictional discovery on a key fact question regarding municipal expenditures under Chapter 252. Given that this fact is crucial to the application of Chapter 252's bid-law immunity waiver, the Court reversed the court of appeals' decision and returned the case for jurisdictional discovery.
Litigation Takeaway
"Family-law litigators should use this case as a strategic guide for standing and plea battles where decisive, fact-dependent elements exist, often within the opponent's control. The opinion reinforces the necessity for allowing focused jurisdictional discovery when jurisdiction relies on specific facts."
Coventry Court, LLC v. The Downs of Hillcrest Residential Association, Inc.
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court held that the court of appeals must determine the validity of an appellate waiver and whether a consent judgment was rendered without consent before dismissing an appeal. This decision impacts family law settlements involving appellate waivers.
Litigation Takeaway
"If an appeal is met with a 'waived it' motion, factual development on waiver validity can be forced. When enforcing a settlement, create a record that can withstand 'no consent/void judgment' challenges."
In re Estate of Guadalupe Lopez, Sr., Deceased
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court held that admitting expert testimony on the existence of an informal (common-law) marriage was an abuse of discretion where the issue was within the ordinary juror’s common knowledge, and that the error was harmful.
Litigation Takeaway
"There are limits on expert testimony about legal status conclusions that jurors can resolve from ordinary facts. The opinion cautions against using former judges or similarly influential witnesses to opine on legal presumptions or ultimate marital-status questions"
City of Houston v. Harris
Supreme Court of Texas
The Supreme Court of Texas denied review of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals’ holding, allowing superseded admissions to be used as summary-judgment evidence, resulting in a circuit split regarding their evidentiary use.
Litigation Takeaway
"Superseded admissions in family-law cases can be treated as evidentiary material, influencing summary judgment strategies. Practitioners should carefully manage admissions and consider their potential evidentiary role even after amendments."
D.V. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court held that a trial court may not terminate parental rights when the Department’s designated representative made an unequivocal, unrepudiated statement at trial withdrawing termination as requested relief. Termination in such circumstances is impermissible unless the Department affirmatively repudiates that withdrawal on the record.
Litigation Takeaway
"This decision requires immediate adjustments in trial practice when DFPS participates in child-related proceedings. DFPS counsel must ensure their witnesses’ testimony about relief is consistent with counsel’s position or must promptly and explicitly correct the record. Defense counsel (parents) should treat any on-the-record DFPS concession about relief as binding unless reversed on the spot; when a concession occurs, opposing counsel should demand clarification, make contemporaneous requests to reopen testimony, object, or obtain a written stipulation to preserve appellate rights. Judges must recognize the binding consequence of a DFPS designated representative’s statements about relief and should require explicit clarification before entering termination judgments."
In re Lynn Madison
Supreme Court of Texas
The Supreme Court of Texas held that an interlocutory TCPA appeal automatically stays all trial-court proceedings until the appellate mandate issues. The stay remains in effect until the mandate is issued, and any trial court rulings prior to that are unauthorized.
Litigation Takeaway
"Family-law litigators must treat any interlocutory TCPA appeal as a complete bar to trial-court proceedings until the mandate issues. Monitoring the appellate docket is crucial to determine when trial courts may proceed."
Ja-Lynn Kuo; JLKUO, PLLC; Subho Mullick; SM ER, PLC; Salima Amina Thobani; and SRG Consulting, LLC v. Regions Bank
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court held that summary-judgment evidence need only be on file at the time of the hearing to be considered under Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c), even if not physically attached to the motion. This decision reversed the court of appeals, which erred by refusing to address evidentiary challenges on forfeiture grounds when the parties agreed the evidence was on file.
Litigation Takeaway
"This opinion emphasizes that documentary evidence relevant in family-law cases, such as business valuations, tax returns, and attorney’s fee affidavits, are considered as long as they are on file and thus supports appellate court's consideration of evidence not physically attached to specific motions. It encourages seeking clarification instead of facing forfeiture if there is any uncertainty regarding on-file documents."
Manohar Singh Mann, Narinder Singh Nagra, and Bhupinder Singh v. Sikh National Center, Inc.
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court denied review of the appellate decision regarding UDJA attorney’s fees, leaving open the question of whether a court lacking jurisdiction may award such fees. Justice Young's concurrence invites future review on the issue.
Litigation Takeaway
"Family law practitioners should be cautious with UDJA fee awards when jurisdiction is contested. Ensure the court's jurisdiction over claims and consider multiple legal theories for fee recovery."
In re Oncor Electric Delivery Co. LLC
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court held that transmission and distribution utilities cannot be alleged to have created or maintained a nuisance as a matter of law. Intentional-nuisance claims against them must be dismissed with prejudice. The Court also held that the pleadings did not sufficiently state gross-negligence claims but allowed plaintiffs to replead those claims with guidance; mandamus relief was conditionally granted.
Litigation Takeaway
"Family-law practitioners must ensure precise pleading in cases involving third-party property damage. The ruling highlights the importance of precise allegations regarding legal duties and warns against reliance on conclusory statements. It emphasizes the strategic use of Rule 91a motions to dismiss legally insufficient claims early, affecting community-property valuations and liability allocations."
Suday v. Suday
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court held that an executor who is the sole beneficiary of an estate may represent the estate pro se, as she is effectively asserting only her personal rights rather than acting in a representative capacity. The decision affects family-law practice, particularly probate, estate administration, and post-decree property disputes intersecting with divorce or partition claims. The Court reversed the court of appeals’ dismissal for want of prosecution and remanded for consideration of the merits.
Litigation Takeaway
"Executors who are the sole beneficiaries can represent the estate pro se in Texas, impacting litigation strategies in probate and family law where the executor's interests align solely with their own. This eliminates an automatic procedural basis for dismissal when counsel withdraws."