Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
863 opinions found
Peele v. State
COA04
In *Peele v. State*, the San Antonio Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction for indecency with a child and, in doing so, offered a useful evidence lesson for family-law cases built around a child’s disclosure. The key dispute was whether the child’s mother could repeat the child’s accusation even though the State initially invoked hearsay theories that did not cleanly fit the record and conceded the mother was not the Article 38.072 outcry witness. The court still affirmed because the complainant herself testified directly to the touching, the defense’s hearsay complaint did not produce reversible harm, and the record otherwise supported the verdict. The opinion underscores that appellate courts focus not just on whether “outcry” procedures were followed, but on specificity of objections, alternative admissibility theories, preservation, and whether any evidentiary error likely affected the outcome.
Litigation Takeaway
"In child-disclosure cases, hearsay fights are won on precision and preservation, not labels. If you object, force the court to identify the exact basis for admission, raise all applicable grounds, and preserve harm each time the same statement comes in. If you offer the evidence, do not rely on vague “outcry” language—build a specific evidentiary path and corroborate the disclosure so any error is harmless."
Leonard v. Wooten and Ellison
COA05
In Leonard v. Wooten and Ellison, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a defamation suit based on statements in an affidavit filed to obtain a TRO in a child-custody proceeding arose from protected petitioning activity under the TCPA. The court focused on the plaintiffs’ own allegations, which showed the challenged statements were made in a sworn filing submitted to a court for judicial relief. It then held that the judicial-proceedings privilege independently barred the defamation claim because statements in affidavits and other court-filed papers that bear some relation to the proceeding are absolutely privileged, even if alleged to be false or malicious. Because Leonard established that defense as a matter of law, the court reversed the TCPA denial by operation of law and remanded.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family cases, allegations made in affidavits or other filings submitted to obtain court relief—especially emergency custody relief—may be both TCPA-protected petitioning activity and absolutely privileged against later defamation claims. The practical lesson is to challenge allegedly false statements inside the family case when possible, and to draft emergency affidavits carefully so they stay tied to the relief requested and the issues before the court."
In re EOG Resources, Inc.
COA04
In this Texas mandamus proceeding, the Fourth Court of Appeals held that EOG’s disclosure of a redacted legal memorandum and an internal email referencing counsel’s advice did not waive attorney-client privilege as to other withheld title opinions, memoranda, and communications in underlying probate litigation over mineral interests. The court found EOG established a prima facie privilege claim through its privilege log, affidavits, and in camera submission, then rejected waiver because Rule 511 requires disclosure of a significant part of the privileged matter itself—not merely documents on the same subject or evidence that a party received and acted on legal advice. The court also rejected offensive-use waiver because EOG was only defending against claims and was not seeking affirmative relief. Because compelled disclosure of privileged material has no adequate appellate remedy, the court conditionally granted mandamus and ordered the trial court to vacate its production order.
Litigation Takeaway
"A partial disclosure does not open the whole lawyer file. In Texas family litigation, opposing counsel cannot prove waiver just by pointing to a redacted memo, an email mentioning legal advice, or testimony that a client acted after consulting counsel; they must show the disclosure revealed a significant part of the withheld communication itself. And offensive-use waiver remains narrow when your client is asserting defenses rather than affirmative claims."
White v. White
COA12
In White v. White, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that divorce-decree payments labeled as “spousal maintenance” were not true Chapter 8 maintenance because, in substance, they were installment payments for the wife’s equity in the marital home and community business interests. The court looked past the decree’s labels and contempt language and focused on the obligation’s actual purpose under the parties’ mediated settlement agreement. Because the $175,000 obligation functioned as a property-division buyout under Family Code section 7.006 rather than periodic support from future income under Chapter 8, the trial court properly refused contempt enforcement. The wife could still recover arrearages and a money judgment, but contempt was unavailable.
Litigation Takeaway
"Labels do not control enforcement. If a payment stream is really a deferred property buyout, calling it “spousal maintenance” will not make it contempt-enforceable. Texas family lawyers should clearly separate true Chapter 8 maintenance from property-equalization payments at the drafting stage and should evaluate the substance of the obligation before filing or resisting contempt."
Ortego v. State
COA01
In Ortego v. State, a husband sought to suppress incriminating text messages discovered on his cell phone by his wife, arguing the search was unconstitutional and violated Texas computer security laws. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the search under the Fourth Amendment and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.23, which excludes evidence obtained in violation of the law. The court held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to private individuals acting without government involvement. Furthermore, because the husband had provided his wife with a written "Commitment to You" note granting her permission to look at his phone "for any reasons" if she had concerns, she had "effective consent." This consent defeated claims of illegal access, making the evidence admissible.
Litigation Takeaway
"Documented consent is the ultimate "kill switch" for digital privacy objections. In family law disputes, evidence found via "digital self-help" is likely admissible if there is a written agreement, a reconciliation memo, or a proven course of conduct involving password sharing and mutual device access. To protect or attack such evidence, practitioners must focus on the specific scope, duration, and potential revocation of that consent rather than general privacy rights."
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."
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 Z.A.A., a Child
COA01
The First Court of Appeals affirmed termination of the father’s parental rights to Z.A.A. after DFPS proved constructive abandonment and best interest by clear and convincing evidence. The court held DFPS made reasonable efforts to reunify by creating and discussing a family service plan and repeatedly trying to locate and contact father through phone numbers, relatives, social media, prior addresses, and his parole officer. It also found father failed to maintain significant contact, failed to support the child, and showed an inability to provide a safe environment, especially because he had substantial periods out of jail but still did not visit or engage. On best interest, the court emphasized the child’s stability and improvement in the maternal great-grandfather’s home, the adoption plan and backup caregiver plan, and contrasted that with father’s drug- and domestic-violence-related criminal history, repeated incarceration, nonparticipation in services, and ongoing absence.
Litigation Takeaway
"In constructive-abandonment cases, DFPS wins on appeal when it builds a detailed record of specific reunification efforts and the parent’s missed opportunities during periods of freedom. For family-law litigators generally, the case reinforces that stability, consistent contact, support, and a concrete permanency plan can outweigh a parent’s bare biological connection when best interest is at issue."
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 re Lillian Gonzalez
COA14
In In re Lillian Gonzalez, the relator asked the Fourteenth Court of Appeals to order the Texas Office of the Attorney General, Child Support Division, to release child-support funds. The court did not reach the merits of whether she was entitled to the money. Instead, it analyzed its mandamus jurisdiction under Texas Government Code section 22.221 and held that courts of appeals may issue mandamus against certain judges and associate judges, but not against the OAG Child Support Division. The court also held that Gonzalez did not show the writ was necessary to protect or enforce the court’s appellate jurisdiction under section 22.221(a). Because neither basis for mandamus jurisdiction applied, the court dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Before filing mandamus in a child-support payment dispute, identify the correct respondent and the source of the complained-of conduct. Even a strong complaint about withheld support funds will be dismissed if the petition is directed at a non-judicial actor like the OAG and does not show why extraordinary relief is necessary to protect the court of appeals’ jurisdiction."