Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
847 opinions found
In re Christopher Vickers
COA13
Christopher Vickers petitioned for a writ of mandamus to overturn a trial court’s order modifying child conservatorship and the right to designate primary residence, claiming he received no notice of the proceedings. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the petition under the established mandamus standard, which requires the relator to prove both a clear abuse of discretion and the lack of an adequate remedy by ordinary appeal. The court held that Vickers failed to provide an appellate record sufficient to support his claims or demonstrate why a standard appeal would be an inadequate remedy, ultimately denying the petition and lifting a previously imposed stay.
Litigation Takeaway
"Alleging a lack of notice or an abuse of discretion is insufficient to secure mandamus relief in a custody dispute; the relator must provide a comprehensive, authenticated record and specifically prove that the legal error cannot be corrected through a standard post-judgment appeal."
Shamim v. Chaudhry
COA05
In Shamim v. Chaudhry, the Dallas Court of Appeals addressed whether 'findings' included within the text of a final judgment are valid on appeal. The case involved a breach of contract claim over a promissory note and counterclaims regarding separate oral loans. Following a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment for the defendant, including three specific findings in the order itself. The Court of Appeals analyzed the procedural requirements of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 296 and 297 and the 'Casino Magic' rule, holding that findings recited within a judgment are procedurally meaningless and cannot substitute for formal Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Because no formal findings were requested, the court applied the 'implied findings' standard. It found that the defendant's counterclaims lacked more than a 'mere scintilla' of evidence, while the plaintiff conclusively established his claim. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment for the plaintiff.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never rely on findings or recitals written directly into a Final Decree or Order; if you prevail at a bench trial, you must timely request formal Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to ensure your evidentiary wins are preserved and protected from 'no-evidence' challenges on appeal."
In re Arianna Victoria Law
COA02
Relator Arianna Victoria Law sought habeas corpus relief after being jailed for failing to pay child support, following a motion to revoke her community supervision. She argued that the underlying motion was legally deficient and that her due process rights were violated because the trial court allegedly failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or provide a reporter's record. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed the petition and found that Law failed to provide a sufficient record—consisting only of the contempt and commitment orders—to prove her claims. The court clarified that a sworn petition is not evidence and that the Relator had misidentified the applicable sections of the Texas Family Code. Consequently, the court denied the petition, holding that Law failed to carry her burden of providing a record sufficient to establish a right to relief.
Litigation Takeaway
"In habeas corpus and other original proceedings, the "record is king." A sworn petition is not evidence; if you are alleging a denial of due process or a lack of an evidentiary hearing, you must provide a comprehensive record—including motions, all underlying orders, and a reporter’s record (or proof that one was requested and denied)—to enable appellate review."
Office of the Attorney General v. PFLAG, Inc.
SCOTX
In Office of the Attorney General v. PFLAG, Inc., the Supreme Court of Texas addressed whether a trial court could enjoin a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) based on the 'political sensitivity' of an investigation into gender-transition care providers. The Court analyzed the CID as a standard discovery tool governed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure rather than a matter for judicial second-guessing of executive branch motives. The Court held that the Attorney General has broad discretion to investigate potential statutory violations, and courts may only limit these demands based on established rules of relevance and privilege, not on the perceived wisdom or political nature of the investigation.
Litigation Takeaway
"The State’s power to investigate third-party records via Civil Investigative Demands is broad and treated like standard discovery; practitioners cannot rely on 'political harassment' defenses to shield sensitive client data. Instead, they must utilize rigorous discovery mechanics, such as privilege logs and redaction agreements, to protect information that could eventually be used as leverage in high-stakes custody or 'best interest' litigation."
Bunch v. Goen
COA03
In Bunch v. Goen, a non-attorney acting as a court-appointed conservator attempted to file a pro se appeal on behalf of a ward. The Third Court of Appeals faced two primary issues: a non-final judgment and a jurisdictional defect regarding the appellant's representative capacity. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 7 and the Texas Government Code, concluding that the privilege to appear pro se is strictly personal and does not extend to fiduciaries representing the interests of others. The court held that appellate documents filed by a non-lawyer in a representative capacity are a legal nullity and ineffective to invoke the court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court held that while it has the discretion to abate an appeal to allow a trial court to cure a finality defect, it cannot overlook the unauthorized practice of law.
Litigation Takeaway
"A non-lawyer—even one with legal status as a conservator, 'next friend,' or power of attorney—cannot represent another person in court; any pro se notice of appeal filed in such a representative capacity is a nullity that fails to protect the party's right to appeal."
S&B Engineers & Constructors, Ltd. and Zurich American Insurance Company v. Scallon Controls, Inc.
SCOTX
In S&B Engineers & Constructors v. Scallon Controls, the Supreme Court of Texas addressed whether a party who voluntarily settles a lawsuit loses their right to seek reimbursement (indemnity) from another party under a contract. The conflict arose when a contractor settled claims with injured workers and then sought to recover a proportional share of that settlement from a subcontractor based on their written agreement. The lower court ruled that the settlement extinguished the right to indemnity, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision. The Court analyzed that Texas public policy favors the freedom of contract and the allocation of risk. It held that a voluntary settlement does not bar a contractual indemnity claim, provided the settling party can prove the settlement was reasonable, made in good faith, and that the underlying liability was attributable to the other party.
Litigation Takeaway
"A voluntary settlement is not a 'get out of jail free' card for an indemnitor. If you settle a debt or lawsuit that your ex-spouse was contractually obligated to pay under a divorce decree or MSA, you do not waive your right to reimbursement. As long as your settlement was reasonable and the debt belonged to them, you can still enforce your right to be made whole."
In Re Kelvin Lorran White
COA05
Relator Kelvin Lorran White sought a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to rule on pending motions and comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a regarding a motion to recuse. The Dallas Court of Appeals analyzed whether the trial court's subsequent referral of the recusal motion rendered the petition moot and whether a delay of less than one month constituted an abuse of discretion. The court held that the Rule 18a issue was moot because the trial court acted after the mandamus was filed. Furthermore, the court denied the remaining claims because the Relator failed to provide a record showing a formal demand for a ruling or an unreasonable period of delay.
Litigation Takeaway
"To compel a trial court to rule via mandamus, you must create a meticulous record showing a formal demand for a ruling and an unreasonable delay (typically months, not weeks); however, simply filing a mandamus petition can often 'break the pocket veto' by prompting a trial judge to finally take the required action."
David Hobbs Ray v. State
COA02
David Hobbs Ray pleaded guilty to multiple counts of child pornography. While the trial court orally sentenced him to five years of confinement for "Count Ten," the subsequently signed written judgment reflected a ten-year sentence. On appeal, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals analyzed the conflict between the oral rendition and the written decree, applying the long-standing Texas rule that an oral pronouncement controls. The court held that appellate courts possess the authority under Rule 43.2 to reform written judgments to "speak the truth" when the record provides the necessary data, and modified Ray’s sentence back to the five years originally ordered from the bench.
Litigation Takeaway
"The court’s oral ruling is the ultimate authority; family law practitioners should always obtain a transcript of the judge’s rendition to ensure the final written decree is accurate and to provide the necessary evidence to correct clerical errors on appeal."
T & T Construction and Development v. Delossantos
COA14
T & T Construction and Development (T&T) sued multiple defendants alleging misrepresentations regarding sewer and water services for a property purchase. The defendants filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment specifically attacking the element of 'reliance.' T&T subsequently amended its petition to swap theories for fraud-by-nondisclosure and negligent misrepresentation, then argued the summary judgment motion was ineffective because it did not explicitly address the newly added claims. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed whether a no-evidence motion can reach later-added causes of action that share common elements. The court held that because 'reliance' was an essential element of both the original and the newly pleaded claims, and because the claims arose from the same factual nucleus, the no-evidence motion was broad enough to cover the amended petition. The court affirmed the dismissal of all claims because T&T failed to produce evidence of reliance.
Litigation Takeaway
"You cannot avoid a no-evidence motion for summary judgment by simply amending your pleadings to new legal theories if those new claims share a common essential element (like reliance) already targeted by the motion; when faced with such a motion, you must provide actual evidence rather than relying on procedural maneuvers."
John William Reblin v. The State of Texas
COA13
In a criminal appeal arising from long-term sexual-abuse allegations involving a minor, the defendant challenged key evidentiary rulings: (1) admission of the child’s first detailed disclosure to the first adult he told as a Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.072 “outcry” statement, and (2) admission of text messages containing inculpatory, apologetic statements that the defendant claimed were inadequately authenticated or too ambiguous to be probative. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals applied the abuse-of-discretion standard and focused on whether the trial court built the required predicate record—especially through the outcry hearing and sponsoring-witness testimony. For the outcry, the court emphasized that the trial court properly identified the qualifying outcry witness (the first adult recipient) and limited the admissible outcry to the child’s first detailed description of the sexual abuse (including frequency and the transactional “gifts” component), which satisfied article 38.072’s requirements. For the texts, the court held the messages were sufficiently authenticated under Texas Rule of Evidence 901 through the recipient’s testimony identifying the participants and providing contextual anchors tying the content to the abuse disclosure and relationship events; the court also accepted that admissions can be contextual and need not be a full confession to be relevant. Finally, even assuming some evidentiary misstep, the court concluded any error was not reversible under the applicable harm analysis given the strength of the remaining, layered evidence. The convictions were affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"In child-abuse-driven SAPCR/protective-order litigation, win the evidentiary war by (1) anchoring the case in the earliest detailed disclosure and presenting it through the cleanest “first adult told” witness, (2) laying tight foundation for texts/screenshots with a sponsoring witness plus context that ties ambiguous apologies to the conduct at issue, and (3) building redundancy so any one evidentiary ruling is unlikely to sink the result on appeal."