Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
847 opinions found
Absolute Oil + Gas, LLC v. Chord Energy Corp.
COA01
In Absolute Oil + Gas, LLC v. Chord Energy Corp., the trial court severed dismissed tort and unjust enrichment claims from an ongoing contract dispute to create a final, appealable judgment. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the severance under the three-prong Guaranty Federal test, focusing on whether the claims were 'factually interwoven.' The court found that because all claims stemmed from the same alleged collusive scheme to inflate costs and shared identical parties and evidence, severance risked inconsistent rulings—particularly regarding whether an express contract barred quasi-contractual recovery. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion, reversing the severance order because the claims were inextricably linked by shared operative facts.
Litigation Takeaway
"Prevent 'divide and conquer' tactics in complex property litigation by using the Interwoven Claims Doctrine to block the severance of tort claims (like fraud on the community) from the main property division, ensuring a single, cohesive 'just and right' adjudication."
Trevino v. State
COA13
In Trevino v. State, a defendant facing intoxication manslaughter charges attempted to prevent the prosecution from presenting graphic evidence—such as autopsy photos and scene footage—by offering to 'stipulate' (legally admit) to his intoxication and the resulting fatalities. He argued that because he conceded these facts, the evidence was unnecessarily prejudicial under Texas Rule of Evidence 403. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that while stipulations are required for 'prior conviction' elements, they do not give a party the power to strip the opponent of the right to tell the full narrative of the current incident. The court concluded that the State was entitled to present the 'full evidentiary force' of the case to provide context and support its theories of the crime.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family law disputes involving domestic violence or substance abuse, an opposing party cannot 'stipulate away' your right to show the court the full story. Admitting that an incident happened does not automatically block you from using high-impact evidence like 9-1-1 calls, photos, or police videos to show the court the true severity of the situation."
Trevino v. Trevino
COA01
After Mark Anthony Trevino appealed a family law judgment, the trial court exercised its plenary power to grant a motion for new trial. The parties requested that the appellate court abate (pause) the appeal pending the outcome of the new trial. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the jurisdictional requirements for an appeal, noting that appellate jurisdiction generally requires a final judgment. The court held that because the grant of a new trial effectively vacates the original judgment, there was no longer a final order for the court to review. Consequently, the court held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal entirely rather than granting an abatement.
Litigation Takeaway
"A trial court’s order granting a new trial acts as a total 'reset' button that vacates the original judgment; this automatically divests the appellate court of jurisdiction, resulting in a dismissal of the appeal rather than a temporary pause."
Patterson v. State
COA07
In Patterson v. State, the Seventh Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court must provide statutory admonishments or specific due process warnings before accepting a 'plea of true' in a revocation or adjudication proceeding. The defendant challenged his fifteen-year sentence, arguing his plea was involuntary because the trial court failed to inform him of his right to plead 'not true' and failed to state the punishment range on the record. The court analyzed Article 26.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and constitutional due process standards, concluding that statutory admonishments required for initial pleas do not apply to the revocation context. The court held that a 'plea of true' is voluntary and binding if the totality of the record—including original plea paperwork and the defendant's own testimony—demonstrates the defendant was aware of the potential consequences, even if the trial judge remained silent regarding specific rights during the hearing.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family law enforcement and contempt proceedings, a respondent's admission or 'plea of true' is sufficient to support a revocation of suspended commitment without the trial court needing to provide formal, ritualistic warnings. If the respondent was notified of the potential consequences in the underlying motion or the original suspension order, their judicial admission will likely be upheld on appeal, making pre-hearing counseling on the finality of such admissions critical for practitioners."
Fanous v. Allstate Insurance
COA02
In Fanous v. Allstate Insurance, the appellant filed a notice of appeal 21 days after the mandatory 90-day deadline triggered by a motion for new trial. The appellant argued the delay was a strategic decision to avoid 'alienating' the trial judge during a pending hearing. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and 26.3, concluding that appellate deadlines are strictly jurisdictional. The court held that subjective tactical concerns or the desire to maintain a judge's favor do not constitute a reasonable explanation for missing filing windows, and subsequently dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never miss a jurisdictional appellate deadline for the sake of 'trial court optics'; the appellate clock does not pause for pending motions or a lawyer's fear of alienating the trial judge."
Ex Parte Giambi Boyd
COA01
After being detained for 560 days on a $1.2 million bond for felony charges, Giambi Boyd sought a bond reduction because the State failed to announce it was ready for trial within the statutory 90-day window. The trial court denied his pretrial writ of habeas corpus despite the State admitting it was still awaiting forensic lab results. The First Court of Appeals reversed the decision, analyzing Article 17.151 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that a felony defendant must be released on personal bond or have their bail reduced to an affordable amount if the State is not ready for trial within 90 days. The court held that this provision is mandatory and takes precedence over general safety factors, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by maintaining an unattainable bond.
Litigation Takeaway
"In high-conflict family law cases involving parallel criminal charges, practitioners can use Article 17.151 to prevent 'strategic detention.' If the State is not ready for trial within 90 days of a client's felony arrest, counsel can force a bond reduction to an affordable amount, ensuring the client can participate in mediation, attend hearings, and defend their parental rights in the civil suit."
Adam Horwitz v. City of Denton, et al.
COA02
In this case, Appellant Adam Horwitz attempted to appeal interlocutory orders granting a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion to dismiss. Horwitz filed his notice of appeal nearly three months after the orders were signed, mistakenly believing that his filing of a motion for new trial extended the appellate deadline to 90 days, a belief reinforced by the trial court's docket labeling the orders as 'Final.' The Second Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1(b) and 28.1, which stipulate that accelerated appeals from interlocutory orders must be filed within 20 days and are not extended by motions for new trial. The court held that because the orders did not dispose of all parties and claims, they were interlocutory, the 20-day deadline applied, and the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never rely on a Motion for New Trial to extend your appellate deadlines for interlocutory orders. In accelerated appeals—common in family law for jurisdictional disputes or temporary injunctions—you must file your notice of appeal within 20 days of the signature, or you risk losing your right to appeal entirely."
Marquez v. State
COA11
In Marquez v. State, the defendant appealed a felony DWI conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient because no law enforcement officer personally observed him driving. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District of Texas analyzed the "operation" element of a DWI charge using a totality-of-the-circumstances test. The court reviewed evidence including a civilian witness's identification of the defendant as the driver, police finding the defendant alone in the driver’s seat of a running vehicle, and the defendant’s immediate flight and attempt to hide from officers. The court held that circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence and that the cumulative force of these factors was legally sufficient to prove the defendant operated the vehicle while intoxicated beyond a reasonable doubt.
Litigation Takeaway
"You do not need a 'smoking gun' or direct eyewitness testimony from a police officer to prove substance abuse or endangerment in court. Judges can rely on 'circumstantial markers'—like being found in the driver's seat of a running car or attempting to flee the scene—to establish a pattern of dangerous conduct that justifies restrictive parenting plans, supervised visitation, or protective orders."
In the Interest of K.H., K.H., K.H., and E.H., Children
COA14
In this case, a mother appealed the termination of her parental rights to her four children, arguing that the evidence against her was legally and factually insufficient. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the mother's history under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(E), which focuses on a parent's endangering course of conduct. The court reviewed documentary evidence—including CPS reports and criminal affidavits—detailing a 16-hour abandonment of a toddler, physical abuse, and chronic medical neglect. The court held that this persistent pattern of instability and failure to complete a court-ordered service plan constituted clear and convincing evidence to support termination. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decree, finding that termination was in the children's best interest.
Litigation Takeaway
"In termination proceedings, documentary evidence like CPS reports and criminal affidavits can be just as powerful as live testimony; if admitted without objection, these records can establish a "course of conduct" sufficient to permanently terminate parental rights even if the parent fails to appear at trial."
Arturo Diaz, et al. v. Herc Rentals Inc.
COA08
In this case, a creditor (Herc Rentals) sought to reach assets transferred by a debtor (Arturo Diaz) to a newly formed LLC intended to shield those assets from a judgment. The debtor argued that the claims under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA) were barred by the four-year statute of repose. The Eighth Court of Appeals analyzed the 'discovery rule' within TUFTA, which allows a claim to be brought within one year of when a transfer 'could reasonably have been discovered.' The court held that the public filing of articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State constitutes constructive notice as a matter of law, meaning the clock started when the entity was formed, not when the debtor's fraudulent intent was later revealed in a deposition. Consequently, the claims were extinguished.
Litigation Takeaway
"Public records are notice to the world; in divorce litigation involving business owners, counsel must perform regular Secretary of State entity searches to identify newly formed shell companies. Waiting for formal discovery or depositions to uncover a spouse's fraudulent intent may result in your claims being barred by the statute of repose if the entity's formation was publicly recorded more than a year prior."