Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
788 opinions found
In Re D.B.
COA01
In a mandamus proceeding arising from a contempt order in a child-related lawsuit, Relator D.B. submitted filings containing sensitive information, such as unredacted minor names and birth dates, in violation of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9. The First Court of Appeals struck the non-compliant documents and provided a seven-day window for the Relator to file redacted versions. Instead of curing the deficiencies, the Relator filed a 'Request to Withdraw Mandamus.' The court analyzed the request as a motion for voluntary dismissal and held that the proceeding should be dismissed without prejudice, effectively ending the appellate challenge due to procedural non-compliance and the Relator's subsequent abandonment of the petition.
Litigation Takeaway
"Strict compliance with privacy rules is not optional; failing to redact sensitive information like children's names and birth dates under TRAP 9.9 can lead to your appellate filings being struck and your case being dismissed before the court ever hears the merits."
Brian Jacob Cole v. Lindsey Renee Cole
COA02
Brian Jacob Cole appealed a final divorce decree that awarded an investment property to his ex-wife and named her sole managing conservator, raising twelve issues including jurisdictional challenges and the denial of a jury trial. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals analyzed the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, which requires briefs to contain clear arguments with appropriate citations to the record and legal authority. The court held that because the appellant failed to provide adequate legal support, failed to preserve errors at trial, and lacked standing to challenge opposing counsel\'s withdrawal, all twelve issues were waived, and the trial court\'s judgment was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Pro se litigants are held to the same rigorous standards as licensed attorneys; representing yourself does not excuse a failure to follow procedural rules, and failing to properly cite the record or legal authority in an appeal will result in a total waiver of your claims."
In the Matter of the Marriage of Schrotel
COA10
After a final decree of divorce was entered, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal while simultaneously pursuing a motion for new trial in the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal, the trial court granted the motion for new trial, which effectively vacated the original divorce decree. The Appellant then filed a voluntary motion to dismiss the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1). The Tenth Court of Appeals analyzed the request and determined that because the underlying judgment had been vacated, the appeal was moot. The court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, allowing the litigation to continue in the trial court.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas family law, you must 'dual-track' your post-judgment strategy: file a notice of appeal to preserve your rights, but if you successfully secure a motion for new trial, promptly dismiss the now-moot appeal to avoid unnecessary legal fees and jurisdictional confusion."
In re Scott Mitchell Obeginski
COA09
In In re Scott Mitchell Obeginski, the Ninth Court of Appeals addressed a challenge to a trial court's post-judgment order sanctioning a litigant for using 'fictitious law' and filing meritless motions. The trial court ordered the litigant to pay over $10,000 in attorney's fees and required him to attend a compliance hearing. The litigant sought a writ of mandamus to vacate the order, arguing the judge improperly acted as a witness and that he had no other way to challenge the ruling. The Court of Appeals denied the request, holding that because a final judgment had been entered and the litigant failed to prove he was financially unable to post a bond (supersedeas), he had an adequate remedy through a standard appeal. The court reaffirmed that trial judges have the authority to evaluate the legal merit of filings without becoming 'fact witnesses.'
Litigation Takeaway
"Once a final judgment is signed, parties sanctioned for meritless or 'creative' legal tactics generally cannot use mandamus to bypass the trial court's order; instead, they must post a supersedeas bond and pursue a standard appeal."
Gerardo Solis III v. State
COA13
In *Solis v. State*, a defendant's counsel raised a suggestion of incompetency during a revocation hearing, supported by testimony of the defendant's mental regression and inability to assist in his defense. The trial court dismissed these concerns after a brief colloquy where the defendant answered basic questions clearly, concluding he was competent. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a trial court abuses its discretion when it weighs evidence of competency against evidence of incompetency during an informal inquiry. The court clarified that if there is 'some evidence' (more than a scintilla) from any source suggesting incompetency, the trial court must stay the proceedings and appoint an expert rather than relying on its own courtroom observations.
Litigation Takeaway
"A judge’s 'vibes check' or a party's polite courtroom demeanor cannot override evidence of mental incapacity; if there is even a scintilla of evidence that a party cannot rationally assist their counsel, the court is legally required to halt proceedings and appoint a competency expert."
Moore v. Stanley Spurling & Hamilton, Inc.
COA14
Moore sued an engineering firm five days before the statute of limitations expired but failed to include a certificate of merit or a 'lack-of-time' allegation in her initial petition. She filed both the certificate and the required allegation 29 days later. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 150.002(c) requires the 'lack-of-time' allegation to be made contemporaneously with the initial filing. The trial court dismissed the case, but the 14th Court of Appeals reversed. The court analyzed the statute's silence on the specific deadline for the allegation and held that, in the 14th District, a plaintiff may provide the 'lack-of-time' justification within the 30-day supplemental window rather than the first petition, provided the suit was filed within 10 days of the limitations deadline.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Houston's 14th District, there is a procedural 'safety valve' for claims against professionals: if you file suit within 10 days of a limitations deadline, you can fix a missing 'lack-of-time' allegation and file your certificate of merit within 30 days of the initial filing. However, beware of venue, as the Dallas and Beaumont courts currently hold that omitting these allegations from the initial petition is a fatal error."
David and Rebecca Bowen v. Texas Fair Plan Association
COA01
In *Bowen v. Texas Fair Plan Association*, homeowners sued their insurance provider following a claim denial. The insurer filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, and the homeowners responded with affidavits from two experts. However, the homeowners had previously filed an amended expert designation that omitted these specific experts. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6, determining that an amended designation supersedes previous lists; by omitting the experts, the homeowners effectively de-designated them. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by striking the expert affidavits and affirming a take-nothing summary judgment, as the remaining evidence was unauthenticated and insufficient to create a fact issue.
Litigation Takeaway
"Always cross-reference your summary judgment evidence with your most recent Rule 194.2 expert designations; amending your witness list to "clean up" for trial can accidentally de-designate the experts you need to survive a no-evidence motion, resulting in the exclusion of their testimony."
Brandon Williams v. Megan Nabila Mitchell
COA03
In this case, Megan Mitchell sought and obtained a family-violence protective order against Brandon Williams. The order was signed by the presiding district judge on August 16, 2024, effectively disposing of all claims in the lawsuit. Williams did not file a notice of appeal until January 2026, nearly seventeen months after the judgment was signed. The Third Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and 26.3, which dictate strict timelines for invoking appellate jurisdiction. The court concluded that because a standalone protective order is a final judgment, the appellate clock began at the time of the judge's signature. Because Williams missed both the primary filing deadline and the 15-day extension window, the court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"A standalone family-violence protective order is a final judgment, not an interlocutory order. To preserve your right to appeal, you must file a notice of appeal within 30 days (or 90 days if a post-judgment motion is filed) of the judge's signature. Waiting for the resolution of a related divorce or missing the 15-day grace period under TRAP 26.3 will result in a permanent loss of appellate rights."
Hart v. San Jacinto River Authority
COA14
After a case was dismissed for want of prosecution (DWOP), the plaintiffs filed a motion to reinstate that was not verified by an affidavit as required by procedural rules. This unverified motion failed to extend the standard 30-day deadline to file an appeal. When the plaintiffs later attempted to file a 'restricted appeal'—a process usually available for six months—the appellate court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court reasoned that under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 30, filing any timely post-judgment motion (even a defective or 'improper' one) automatically disqualifies a party from seeking a restricted appeal. The court held that the unverified motion was still a 'motion' for purposes of the rule, creating a procedural trap that left the plaintiffs with no way to challenge the dismissal.
Litigation Takeaway
"An unverified motion to reinstate is a 'deadly' procedural error: it is ineffective at extending the 30-day window for a standard appeal, yet it simultaneously bars the filing of a restricted appeal. To protect your rights, always ensure a motion to reinstate is verified by personal knowledge and, if the 30-day deadline is approaching without a signed order of reinstatement, file a notice of appeal immediately to preserve the case."
Bonterra at Cross Creek Ranch Community Association, Inc. v. Laughlin
COA01
After a homeowner died from Legionnaire’s Disease allegedly contracted at a community pool, her heirs filed wrongful death and survival claims against the developers. The developers moved to compel arbitration based on a broad clause in the residential purchase agreement that invoked the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court analyzed whether the FAA preempted the Texas Arbitration Act’s (TAA) requirement that an attorney must sign arbitration agreements for personal injury claims. The court held that the FAA preemption applied, the claims were 'factually intertwined' with the purchase agreement, and the decedent’s agreement to arbitrate bound her heirs in derivative tort actions.
Litigation Takeaway
"Broad arbitration clauses in property or business contracts governed by the FAA can sweep 'crossover' personal injury and wrongful death claims into arbitration, binding both the signatories and their heirs, even if the agreement lacks the attorney signatures typically required by the Texas Arbitration Act."