Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
847 opinions found
In re PVF Industrial Supply, Inc.
COA06
In a personal injury case with broad implications for family law tort and business disputes, the Texarkana Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant can designate a responsible third party (RTP) after the statute of limitations has expired. The trial court had denied the designation because the defendant did not identify the RTP in its initial disclosures. The appellate court conditionally granted mandamus relief, reasoning that Section 33.004(d) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code only bars late designations if a defendant fails to comply with a 'timely disclosure' obligation. Because the defendant’s Rule 194 disclosure deadline fell after the limitations period had already passed, there was no breach of duty. The court held that an erroneous denial of an RTP designation 'skews' the comparative-responsibility framework of the trial, making mandamus the appropriate remedy as the error cannot be adequately cured on appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"A defendant's duty to disclose responsible third parties is governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, not the expiration of the statute of limitations; if your disclosure deadline falls after limitations expires, you are not barred from designating an RTP, and a trial court's refusal to allow that designation is a 'skewing' error that justifies immediate mandamus relief."
Lamar Advantage Outdoor Co., L.P. v. LaCore Enterprises, LLC, et al.
COA05
A billboard lessee (Lamar) sued a property owner and a third-party purchaser for breach of contract and conversion after the owner sold the property without providing a contractually mandated 'desire to sell' notice. This notice was a condition precedent to the lessee's 30-day window to exercise an option for a perpetual easement. The Dallas Court of Appeals analyzed the lease's plain language and determined that because the lessor failed to provide the required notice, the lessee's exercise window never expired. The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment, holding that genuine issues of material fact regarding the breach and the lessee's right to possession precluded judgment as a matter of law.
Litigation Takeaway
"In complex property divisions, practitioners must perform exhaustive due diligence for 'poison pill' clauses like rights of first refusal or purchase options; a failure to provide mandated notice to third-party lessees during a post-divorce sale or transfer can lead to litigation that clouds the title and strips the community asset of its value."
McNamara v. Bartolomei
COA04
McNamara sued his former attorney for defamation per se following a statement made in a court-ordered response during a habeas proceeding. The trial court granted summary judgment for the attorney on two independent grounds: attorney immunity and the judicial-proceedings privilege. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that McNamara's failure to challenge the judicial-proceedings privilege on appeal required affirmance under the unchallenged independent-ground rule. Substantively, the court held that the judicial-proceedings privilege provides absolute immunity for statements made in the course of litigation, meaning defamation claims based on such statements are barred even if the statements are false or made with malice.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas, statements made in pleadings, affidavits, or other court filings are protected by an absolute judicial-proceedings privilege, shielding parties and counsel from defamation liability regardless of malice. Furthermore, if a trial court grants summary judgment on multiple grounds, an appellant must challenge every single ground in their brief, or the appellate court will automatically affirm the ruling."
Salinas v. Tovar
COA13
In Salinas v. Tovar, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court could compel a defendant to produce his cell phone and iCloud data for forensic examination in an invasion of privacy suit involving allegations of illegal recording. The court analyzed the "act of production" doctrine under the Fifth Amendment, which provides that the physical act of handing over a device is a testimonial communication that confirms the device's existence and the party's control over it. Because the defendant faced potential criminal liability, and the plaintiff failed to prove that his possession of the phone was a "foregone conclusion," the court held that the order compelling production violated the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. The court distinguished between permissible orders to preserve evidence and unconstitutional orders to affirmatively produce it.
Litigation Takeaway
"The Fifth Amendment's "act of production" doctrine can shield cell phones and digital devices from forensic discovery in civil cases if the act of turning them over confirms the party's possession of potentially incriminating evidence. To successfully compel production, a litigator must establish the device's existence and the opponent's possession through independent evidence—such as service provider records—to satisfy the "foregone conclusion" exception."
In the Interest of E.K.Y.O.
COA04
In a SAPCR modification proceeding, the trial court ordered a father to pay $20,000 in attorney’s fees and costs. The father appealed, contending that his previously filed Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs—which was uncontested—exempted him from such an award under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. However, the father had filed the Statement in a separate cause number involving the registration of a foreign judgment, rather than the specific modification case. The Fourth Court of Appeals analyzed Rule 145, concluding that indigency protections are case-specific and do not automatically follow a party into separate, even if related, litigation. The court held that because the father failed to file the Statement in the correct cause number, he was not shielded from the fee award and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"Indigency status under Rule 145 is case-specific; to protect a client from fee awards or court costs, you must file a Statement of Inability in every individual cause number, as a filing in a related or precursor case will not provide protection in a separate proceeding."
Lomerson v. Lyle Reid & Associates, L.L.C.
COA07
In a property damage dispute involving complex water drainage issues, the plaintiff failed to timely designate expert witnesses required to prove causation. The defendants moved for a no-evidence summary judgment, arguing that without admissible expert testimony, the plaintiff could not meet his burden of proof. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6, which mandates the automatic exclusion of untimely evidence unless the proponent establishes 'good cause' or a 'lack of unfair surprise or prejudice.' The court held that the plaintiff's claim of 'mistake' or counsel inadvertence did not satisfy these exceptions. Because expert testimony was necessary for the technical issue of causation, the court affirmed the summary judgment, effectively dismissing the case.
Litigation Takeaway
"Missing an expert designation deadline is more than a discovery hiccup—it is a potential case-killer. Under TRCP 193.6, late-filed experts are automatically excluded from consideration at the summary judgment stage unless you can prove a specific legal exception. In family law matters involving business valuations, property tracing, or custody evaluations, failing to adhere to the scheduling order can result in a 'no-evidence' judgment that ends your claim before trial."
Padilla-Madden v. Sandoval
COA04
A Texas resident sued an Alabama resident for breach of an oral agreement to share compensation earned as a trustee. The nonresident defendant challenged Texas jurisdiction via a special appearance, which the trial court denied. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the defendant purposefully availed herself of the Texas forum by traveling to San Antonio to execute the trust agreement and by managing trust assets stored in a San Antonio safe deposit box. The court held that the breach of contract claim related directly to these contacts because the defendant’s appointment and performance as trustee—the source of the disputed funds—were anchored in Texas.
Litigation Takeaway
"Nonresidents who physically travel to Texas to execute legal documents or manage assets in Texas-based safe deposit boxes provide sufficient 'minimum contacts' for Texas courts to exercise specific jurisdiction over them in disputes related to those documents or assets."
F.M.H. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
COA03
This case involved an appeal by a mother whose parental rights were terminated following a bench trial she failed to attend. The Department of Family and Protective Services sought termination based on neglectful supervision, drug use, and the mother's failure to engage in any court-ordered services, such as therapy and drug testing. After the trial court terminated her rights, her court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal was frivolous. The Third Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record, evaluating the evidence under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b) regarding endangerment and constructive abandonment. The court found that the mother's total lack of participation in services and the children's successful placement in stable, prospective adoptive homes provided legally and factually sufficient evidence for termination. The court held that no arguable grounds for appeal existed and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"A parent’s total failure to engage in court-ordered services and absence from trial creates an evidentiary record that is nearly impossible to challenge on appeal. For practitioners, meticulously documenting "referral fatigue"—the repeated offering and subsequent rejection of rehabilitative resources—and treating missed drug tests as evidence of endangerment are critical steps to ensuring a termination decree survives an Anders review and provides permanency for the children."
Sebastian Linke v. Kyle Folmer
COA04
In Sebastian Linke v. Kyle Folmer, the San Antonio Court of Appeals addressed whether a judgment is final for appeal purposes when it expressly reserves a ruling on a prevailing party’s attorney’s fees. Despite the judgment containing boilerplate language stating it was 'final and appealable,' the court analyzed the record under the Lehmann and Sealy Emergency Room standards. It determined that because the prevailing party had a mandatory contractual claim for fees that the trial court explicitly deferred for a later hearing, the judgment did not actually dispose of all claims. Consequently, the court held that the judgment was not final and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never rely on 'final and appealable' boilerplate language if the trial court has reserved a ruling on mandatory attorney's fees. To avoid a jurisdictional trap or a dismissed appeal, ensure the final decree expressly grants, denies, or severs all pending fee claims."
Antonio Munoz Aserradero, LLC v. Thomas
COA12
In Antonio Munoz Aserradero, LLC v. Thomas, a worker was injured during a 'try-out' day at a sawmill. The employer sought to dismiss the worker's negligence lawsuit, arguing that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy applied because the worker was an 'employee' as a matter of law, pointing to a generated pay stub and the payment of medical benefits. The Tyler Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's refusal to grant a directed verdict for the employer. The court reasoned that 'employee' status requires a 'contract of hire' based on mutual assent and a promise of payment. Because testimony suggested the parties were only testing the arrangement and would 'talk about employment' later, there was a genuine dispute for the jury to decide whether a contract actually existed at the time of the injury.
Litigation Takeaway
"Employment status is determined by the fundamentals of contract formation—offer, acceptance, and a clear agreement on pay—rather than just payroll records or insurance payments. In family law disputes over income or earning capacity, you can challenge a spouse's claimed 'employment' (or lack thereof) by looking past administrative labels to see if a valid 'contract of hire' was ever actually formed."