Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1576 opinions found
Nicholas Allen White v. The State of Texas
COA14
In Nicholas Allen White v. State, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals held the evidence was legally sufficient to prove lack of consent for indecent assault even though the complainant never verbally said “no” during the touching. The court rejected the appellant’s argument that indecent assault requires the force-based “without consent” definition from the sexual-assault statute, and instead applied the Penal Code’s general definition of consent as “assent in fact, whether express or implied.” Using that framework, the court concluded a rational jury could infer nonconsent from circumstantial evidence: the complainant had declined related advances, testified that White forced his hand down her pants, froze in fear, resisted being pulled into the men’s restroom, and immediately returned to friends crying and reported what happened. The conviction for indecent assault was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas family-law cases, the absence of a spoken “no” does not equal consent. White is useful authority for arguing that courts may infer nonconsent from context, trauma responses like freezing, physical resistance, immediate outcry, and surrounding circumstances, even when the parties were previously friendly or flirtatious. That makes the case especially helpful in custody, protective-order, and fault-based divorce litigation involving allegations of sexual coercion or boundary violations."
In the Interest of K.D.M. and S.I.L.
COA14
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of Mother’s parental rights to two children after concluding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient under Texas Family Code sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and 161.003, as well as on best interest and conservatorship. The court focused on evidence of endangering surroundings and conditions, including domestic violence, unstable care arrangements, and the prior death of an infant sibling in Mother’s care that the Department linked to medical neglect. It also relied on Mother’s significant cognitive limitations and her inability to present a coherent, realistic plan for housing, childcare, schooling, therapies, supervision, and emergency response. Applying the clear-and-convincing standard, the court held that Mother’s limitations were not merely abstract diagnoses but functionally prevented her from meeting the children’s present and future needs, and that termination and appointment of the Department as sole managing conservator were in the children’s best interest.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-law cases, courts look beyond a parent’s good intentions and focus on functional parenting capacity: who will care for the child, where the child will live, how needs will be met, and how safety risks will be managed. Where cognitive limitations, domestic violence, instability, or poor safety planning affect day-to-day care, lawyers must build a concrete record with specific facts, corroboration, and workable caregiving plans."
Gurrola v. State
COA03
In Gurrola v. State, the Austin Court of Appeals held that the defendant waived any appellate complaint that a trauma therapist’s guilt-innocence testimony was improper victim-impact evidence. Although defense counsel objected at the outset to the witness generally on relevance, prejudice, bolstering, and victimization grounds, counsel did not obtain a running objection and did not renew those objections when the specific testimony about therapy, PTSD, trauma symptoms, and emotional effects was actually elicited. Applying Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a) and preservation cases such as Martinez and Fuller, the court concluded that an initial global objection and a granted motion in limine were not enough to preserve error. Because the complaint was not preserved, the court did not reach the admissibility merits and affirmed the conviction.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-law trials, one opening objection to a therapist, counselor, or expert is not enough. If damaging testimony keeps coming in, you must keep objecting or secure a clear running objection; and a motion in limine never substitutes for a trial objection. Appellate issues are often lost on preservation, not merit."
In the Interest of R.D., a Child
COA07
In this parental-termination appeal, the Seventh Court of Appeals did not reach the merits because the reporter’s record was overdue and the court reporter ignored the court’s status request. Applying Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 35.3(c) and 37.3(a)(2), the court held that it had to take action to avoid further delay and protect the parties’ rights in an accelerated appeal. The court abated the appeal and remanded for the trial court to determine what work remained on the record, why the delay occurred, how long completion would take, and whether the original reporter could timely finish it. The court also required the trial court to arrange a substitute reporter if the original reporter needed more than twenty additional days to complete, certify, and file the record.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas family appeals, especially accelerated termination cases, lawyers cannot treat the reporter’s record as a back-office issue. Monitor record deadlines aggressively, document all communications, and raise delay problems early, because appellate courts may abate the case, remand for findings, and even require a substitute reporter to keep the appeal moving."
Pegram v. Pegram
COA05
In Pegram v. Pegram, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed a county-court default judgment entered after the defendant failed to appear for a trial de novo from justice court. The court held the judgment was a post-answer default, not a no-answer default, because the defendant’s justice-court motion to dismiss functioned as an answer and carried forward into the county-court proceeding. Because a post-answer default requires the plaintiff to prove every element with evidence, and no reporter’s record existed, the court could not review the defendant’s legal-sufficiency challenge. The absence of a record required reversal and remand.
Litigation Takeaway
"If the opposing party has filed anything that counts as an answer, a later nonappearance does not create a no-answer default. In family cases, that means you must present admissible evidence on every element of requested relief and make a reporter’s record, or you risk reversal on appeal."
In the Interest of W.R.I.F.
COA05
The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed termination of Mother’s parental rights to a medically vulnerable infant after concluding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (M), and (R), and that termination was in the child’s best interest. The court emphasized Mother’s two-decade methamphetamine addiction, admitted drug use during pregnancy, prior endangerment-based terminations as to two other children, missed drug testing, unstable housing, and her failure during a monitored return to consistently meet the child’s significant medical needs, including therapy attendance and inhaler management. Applying the clear-and-convincing standard, the court treated these facts as a continuing course of endangering conduct rather than isolated lapses, and it held that the stable foster placement with the child’s sibling strongly supported best interest. The court also rejected Mother’s due-process complaint about a post-trial clarification hearing and her ineffective-assistance claim because she failed to show any substantive deprivation or prejudice.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas family-law cases, courts look at the whole pattern, not just recent improvement. Long-term drug use, prior endangerment findings, unstable housing, and a parent’s inability to handle a child’s actual medical needs can outweigh short-term compliance and strongly support findings of danger and best interest. If you are trying the case, build a timeline, tie the conduct to the child’s real-world needs, and make a concrete record of harm for any procedural complaint."
Martinez v. State
COA07
In Martinez v. State, the Amarillo Court of Appeals considered whether a defendant on community supervision could refuse a treatment-required instant-offense polygraph by invoking the Fifth Amendment after his conviction for indecency with a child was already final on direct appeal. The court focused on the narrow scope of the polygraph, which was limited to the adjudicated offense and did not reach other potentially chargeable conduct. Relying on Fifth Amendment principles discussed in Ex parte Dangelo and In re Medina, the court held that the privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to questioning about an offense that can no longer expose the defendant to future criminal liability because direct appeals are exhausted. On that basis, the court concluded the refusal to participate supported revocation of community supervision. The court also modified the judgment and bill of costs to remove language suggesting future appointed-attorney’s fees could be assessed despite an indigency finding and no evidence of changed financial circumstances.
Litigation Takeaway
"A Fifth Amendment objection is not a blanket shield when the questioning is tightly limited to a finalized criminal offense. In family-law cases, lawyers should frame discovery, evaluations, and examinations with precision: if the inquiry concerns only an adjudicated offense with no remaining criminal exposure, a broad privilege claim may fail and noncooperation can carry real litigation consequences."
Lopez v. Lengyel
COA03
In a dispute between two professional online streamers, the Austin Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's dismissal of an informal marriage claim. The trial court had granted a no-evidence summary judgment, finding there was insufficient proof of an agreement to be married or a public 'holding out' as spouses. However, the appellate court analyzed the 'mosaic' of evidence provided by the claimant—including testimony about an agreement made to facilitate international travel during COVID-19, representations made to family and household staff, and the use of the partner's surname. The court held that even though the parties used inconsistent labels online (such as 'boyfriend') for professional branding purposes, the accumulated evidence was enough to create a factual dispute that must be decided at trial rather than dismissed early.
Litigation Takeaway
"Proving a common-law marriage depends on the 'cumulative force' of evidence, such as statements to family, household staff, and government officials. Inconsistent public messaging—especially when motivated by privacy or professional branding—does not automatically defeat a marriage claim; instead, it creates a credibility issue that should be resolved at trial."
In re Leo Lapuerta, M.D., F.A.C.S., and The Plastic Surgery Institute of Southeast Texas, P.A.
SCOTX
In an underlying medical-negligence case, a jury returned an 11–1 defense verdict finding no proximate cause and the trial court signed a take-nothing judgment. After the plaintiff moved for new trial—re-urging charge objections and submitting a lone dissenting juror’s post-verdict letter describing deliberations—the trial court granted a new trial and later issued an amended order listing seven reasons, largely framed as charge confusion tied to Texas “loss of chance”/medical-causation principles. The Texas Supreme Court held the new-trial order was an abuse of discretion because its stated reasons rested on a misapprehension of Texas causation law; a trial court has no discretion to grant a new trial on an incorrect legal premise. The Court also condemned the submission of juror-deliberation evidence as “flagrantly improper” and refused to discount the risk that such material influenced the new-trial ruling. The Court conditionally granted mandamus and directed the trial court to render judgment on (reinstate) the jury’s take-nothing verdict.
Litigation Takeaway
"New-trial orders must rest on a legally correct, record-supported, and specifically articulated rationale—not a judge’s mistaken view of the law or post-verdict narratives about what jurors discussed. If the losing party tries to prove “jury confusion” with juror letters/affidavits about deliberations, object and move to strike; and if a new trial is granted anyway, mandamus is often the proper—and fast—remedy to reinstate the verdict and avoid a wasteful redo."
In the Interest of J.K.C.
COA08
In In the Interest of J.K.C., the Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of a father’s parental rights after appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating there were no non-frivolous issues for appeal. The court independently reviewed the full record, including the endangerment findings under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), the constructive-abandonment finding under subsection (N), and the best-interest finding under § 161.001(b)(2). After that review, the court concluded there was no arguable basis to challenge the trial court’s ruling and affirmed the termination order. The court also denied counsel’s motion to withdraw, holding that appointed counsel in termination cases must continue representation through the petition-for-review stage under In re P.M. and Family Code § 107.016(2)(B).
Litigation Takeaway
"Termination appeals are won or lost on the trial record. If trial counsel does not preserve error, develop evidence against endangerment and best interest, and create a meaningful appellate record, the court of appeals may find no arguable issue at all—even under its own independent Anders review. The case also reminds appointed counsel that representation in termination cases continues beyond the court of appeals."