Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
714 opinions found
City of Houston v. Jessica Zuniga
Supreme Court of Texas
The Supreme Court of Texas denied the City of Houston’s petition for review, leaving in place the court of appeals’ conclusion that the City had actual notice under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.101(c), allowing the negligence claim to proceed to the merits. Justice Young emphasized the need for doctrinal clarity regarding actual notice requirements.
Litigation Takeaway
"For family-law practitioners, ensure jurisdictional footing when dealing with governmental entities by serving formal notice within deadlines or proving actual notice through documented evidence. Anticipate jurisdictional pleas and rely on plain statutory language to argue actual notice."
In the Interest of N.L.S. and E.J.C., Children
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held that legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Father engaged in conduct that endangered his child’s physical or emotional well‑being under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E). The case is remanded to the court of appeals to address unresolved factual‑sufficiency and best‑interest issues.
Litigation Takeaway
"This opinion reinforces that a coherent, cumulative narrative of risk — including criminal convictions that indicate violence or substance abuse, evidence of recurrent incarceration, and limited or inconsistent parental involvement — can satisfy legal sufficiency under § 161.001(b)(1)(E)."
Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in his Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc.
Supreme Court of Texas
The Supreme Court of Texas held the trial court erred in prematurely enjoining the Attorney General from pursuing records and filing a quo warranto action against Annunciation House: The Attorney General has the constitutional authority to file the proposed quo warranto and the injunctions were premature. The court confined its decision to that threshold question and remanded for the litigation to proceed on the merits, leaving open the substantive defenses (including RFRA and constitutional claims).
Litigation Takeaway
"Although this case arises in a civic enforcement context, its procedural and discovery holdings carry immediate implications for family-law practice: (1) courts should be wary of issuing broad pre-filing or precompliance injunctions against statutory investigatory processes absent a developed record; (2) third-party record requests directed at nonprofits, faith-based organizations, or shelters that intersect with family disputes (custody, domestic violence shelters, hidden-asset investigations) require careful navigation of statutory authority, privilege and religious-liberty claims; and (3) the decision underscores the tactical importance of timely legal response, protective orders, and properly framed jurisdictional and constitutional challenges rather than premature summary judgment on facial constitutional grounds."
Abigail Dalila Cerna, as Next Friend of R.W. v. Pearland Urban Air, LLC
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court determined that when a valid arbitration agreement includes a clear delegation clause for questions of scope and arbitrability, the arbitrator should resolve such disputes, not the court. This was applicable even though the incident in question occurred during a separate visit under an agreement executed in August.
Litigation Takeaway
"The ruling highlights the importance for family-law practitioners to distinctly draft arbitration clauses when handling issues such as custody, child support, and property division. Specific delegation clauses can drive the arbitration process, making it imperative to ensure clarity and unmistakable language concerning scope and arbitrator authority."