Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1576 opinions found
Gallegos v. State
COA04
In Gallegos v. State, the Fourth Court of Appeals held the evidence was legally sufficient to support an indecency-with-a-child count alleging contact with a child’s breast even though the child said the defendant touched her “chest.” The court analyzed the issue under a context-based sufficiency framework, relying on the child’s young age, her undeveloped anatomy, and her testimony distinguishing her “chest” from other body areas like her stomach and tummy. Applying Jackson v. Virginia and Arroyo, the court concluded a rational factfinder could infer she meant her breast area. The court also rejected unpreserved jury-charge complaints for lack of egregious harm and upheld the assessed court costs.
Litigation Takeaway
"A child’s imperfect or age-limited body-part vocabulary does not automatically destroy the evidentiary value of the child’s statement. In family-law cases involving abuse allegations, courts may rely on context—age, developmental stage, narrative detail, and differentiation among body areas—to draw reasonable inferences about what the child meant. The case also underscores that charge complaints must be preserved to have real appellate traction."
In the Interest of L.W. & M.W., Children
COA12
The Tyler Court of Appeals affirmed a modification order removing the mother from managing conservatorship and appointing the children’s maternal grandparents as joint managing conservators. The court held the evidence was sufficient to show a material and substantial change and that modification was in the children’s best interest where the mother’s home had become an unsafe, neglectful environment involving recurring parties, alcohol and drug use, sexual activity, criminal conduct, firearms incidents, and unstable overnight guests. Applying deferential abuse-of-discretion review, and implying findings in support of the judgment because no findings of fact were requested, the court concluded the evidence also rebutted the parental presumption by supporting a finding that the mother’s continued appointment would significantly impair the children’s physical health or emotional development. The court further upheld unusually severe restrictions on the mother’s possession and communication because the trial court expressly found those limits were necessary to protect the children.
Litigation Takeaway
"In nonparent modification cases, grandparents can overcome the parental presumption with a strong, fact-specific record showing a persistent pattern of neglectful or dangerous home conditions—not just that they offer a better home. For parents, repeated evidence of drugs, alcohol, criminal activity, unsafe guests, and instability around the children is extremely hard to overcome on appeal, especially without requested findings of fact. Build or attack the case at trial, because abuse-of-discretion review gives trial courts broad latitude to impose even very restrictive access orders when tied to child safety."
Brooks v. Wycough
COA12
In Brooks v. Wycough, a rural property dispute returned to the Tyler Court of Appeals after the trial court struck Brooks’s affidavit as a sham and granted summary judgment against his remaining equitable claims. The appellate court held that the sham-affidavit doctrine applies only when a later affidavit clearly contradicts prior sworn testimony on a material point without adequate explanation. Because Wycough relied on alleged inconsistencies between Brooks’s affidavit and his pleadings—and especially superseded pleadings—the doctrine did not apply. The court emphasized that superseded pleadings are displaced by amended pleadings and that pleadings generally are not competent summary-judgment evidence. It therefore held the trial court erred in disregarding the affidavit as a sham on that basis and rejected expanding the doctrine beyond its evidentiary foundation.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not try to strike an affidavit as a sham by comparing it to earlier pleadings. In Texas summary-judgment practice, you need a contradiction with prior sworn testimony, not just inconsistent advocacy in petitions. For family lawyers, this is especially useful in property and reimbursement disputes where theories evolve through amended pleadings."
In the Interest of E.A.A., a Child
COA12
In *In the Interest of E.A.A., a Child*, the Twelfth Court of Appeals dismissed a child-related appeal after the pro se appellant failed to file the docketing statement required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1. The court sent two notices and gave the appellant an opportunity to cure, but no docketing statement was filed by the final deadline. Applying Rule 42.3(c), the court held dismissal was proper because the appellant failed to comply with the appellate rules after notice. The court also emphasized that pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as attorneys, so self-representation did not excuse the default.
Litigation Takeaway
"Family-law appeals can be lost before briefing begins if basic appellate filing requirements are ignored. Treat the docketing statement and other initial appellate filings as mandatory, monitor deficiency notices immediately, and do not assume a pro se party will receive procedural leniency."
In the Interest of C.S.S.
COA03
The Third Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s refusal to terminate child-support wage withholding where the obligor claimed he had overpaid, but the Office of the Attorney General’s records and the trial court’s unchallenged findings showed unpaid arrearages and accrued interest remained. The court applied the abuse-of-discretion standard, treated the unchallenged findings as binding, and held that under the Family Code, withholding may continue after current support ends if arrears and interest are still owed. Because the obligor did not produce competent evidence disproving the OAG’s accounting, the trial court properly denied relief.
Litigation Takeaway
"Ending current child support does not end income withholding if arrearages and interest remain. If you want withholding terminated, you need a real evidentiary accounting—not just a claim that the numbers seem too high—and on appeal you must specifically challenge findings of fact or they will likely control the outcome."
McBride v. Rios-Flores
COA08
In McBride v. Rios-Flores, the Eighth Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of the underlying family-law dispute because the appeal failed on briefing. After striking the appellant’s original brief for noncompliance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4 and 38.1, the court gave notice, a deadline to cure, and an express warning that continued noncompliance could result in dismissal. The appellant timely filed an amended brief, but it still consisted largely of conclusory bullet points with almost no meaningful record citations and no developed legal analysis connecting authority to the facts. Applying Rules 38.1, 38.9(a), 38.8(a), 42.3, and 44.3, the court explained that while briefing rules are construed liberally to preserve appellate review, that liberality does not require the court to research arguments or search the record on a party’s behalf. Because the amended brief still flagrantly violated the appellate rules after an opportunity to cure, the court struck the brief and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
Litigation Takeaway
"A family-law appeal can be lost before the court ever reaches custody, modification, support, or property issues if the brief does not actually brief them. Conclusory complaints, bare statutory citations, and weak record references are not enough; the appellant must identify the ruling challenged, state the standard of review, cite the controlling law and the exact record support, and explain why reversal is required. For appellees, this case is a useful reminder that persistent, serious briefing defects can justify waiver arguments, a motion to strike, and ultimately dismissal after notice and an opportunity to cure."
Armando Jesus Pedraza v. The State of Texas
COA01
In *Armando Jesus Pedraza v. The State of Texas*, the First Court of Appeals affirmed a 30-year punishment judgment after Pedraza argued his lawyer was ineffective during punishment. He claimed counsel should have objected to hearsay testimony about an online article describing prior violent conduct and wrongly advised him that he could testify while still invoking the Fifth Amendment about pending charges. The court applied *Strickland* and held the record was too undeveloped to show deficient performance or prejudice. Because counsel had no opportunity to explain the reasons for not objecting or for calling Pedraza to testify, the court would not speculate on a silent record, especially given the already extensive punishment evidence of prior violence, convictions, bond violations, and pending charges. The court therefore affirmed the judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a case overlaps with criminal exposure, lawyers must prepare clients carefully before they testify because taking the stand may waive any ability to refuse related cross-examination. The case also shows that appellate complaints about bad evidence or bad strategy usually fail without a well-developed record explaining counsel’s choices, so trial lawyers should preserve objections, seek limiting rulings when appropriate, and build a record if strategy may later be challenged."
Shepard v. Shepard
COA05
In this divorce appeal, the wife, acting without a lawyer, challenged numerous rulings including recusal decisions, due-process concerns, evidentiary limits, ADA accommodation issues, temporary orders, and the trial court’s confirmation of the marital residence as the husband’s separate property. The Dallas Court of Appeals did not reach those merits because, even after being notified of defects and given a chance to amend, her brief still failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. Applying the rule that pro se litigants must follow the same appellate briefing standards as attorneys, the court held that the amended brief lacked clear argument, meaningful record citations, and supporting legal authority. Because nothing was properly presented for appellate review, the court dismissed the appeal under Rule 42.3(c).
Litigation Takeaway
"A family-law appeal can be lost before the court ever considers the merits if the brief does not clearly connect preserved complaints to the record, legal authority, and the applicable standard of review. Even serious complaints about recusal, temporary orders, property characterization, or trial fairness will not be reviewed if the appellant does not comply with Rule 38.1—and pro se parties get no special exemption."
In the Interest of N.A.G.A., a Child
COA05
Foster parents sought a family-violence protective order on behalf of a child against the child’s permanent managing conservator, relying on evidence of a prior intoxication-based endangerment incident, a criminal plea, a USCIS T-visa approval, and allegations of abuse and trafficking. The Dallas Court of Appeals held the trial court, as factfinder, was entitled to conclude that this record did not prove the statutory predicates for a protective order, including trafficking, abuse, and the required family or household relationship under the Family Code. Because the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the denial, the court affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"A compelling story is not enough in a protective-order case. Family-law practitioners must prove each statutory element with admissible, case-specific evidence—especially the qualifying relationship or household nexus—and cannot assume CPS history, criminal pleas, immigration findings, or a respondent’s default will carry the application."
In the Interest of B.G.T. aka E.T., a Child
COA06
The Texarkana Court of Appeals affirmed termination of Mother’s parental rights after concluding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s best-interest finding. The case began when both Mother and newborn tested positive for amphetamine, and the record later showed ongoing methamphetamine use, repeated positive and refused drug tests, untreated mental-health issues, incarceration, failure to complete court-ordered services, and an unsafe proposed home with a known drug user. Applying the clear-and-convincing standard and the Holley best-interest factors, the court emphasized that unchallenged predicate findings and overlapping endangerment evidence strongly supported best interest, especially when contrasted with the child’s stable and successful placement with relatives. The court held that a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that termination was in the child’s best interest.
Litigation Takeaway
"Best-interest cases are won with comparative, current evidence: ongoing drug use, untreated mental illness, service-plan noncompliance, incarceration, and unsafe housing can outweigh a biological parent’s rights when the child is thriving in a stable placement. On appeal, leaving predicate grounds unchallenged can sharply narrow the fight and make a best-interest-only challenge much harder to win."