Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
788 opinions found
Roger Allan Smith v. State
COA14
Roger Allan Smith appealed his conviction for the continuous sexual abuse of a child, arguing that the victim's testimony was too vague to satisfy the statutory requirement that at least two acts occurred over a 30-day period. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed whether a rational jury could infer the necessary duration from testimony describing the frequency of abuse rather than specific dates. The court held that evidence of a regular pattern—specifically testimony that abuse occurred "every couple of weeks to a month" beginning near a specific birthday—is legally sufficient to establish the 30-day window, even if the witness lacks "autobiographical memories" of each specific instance.
Litigation Takeaway
"To establish a "pattern of abuse" in SAPCR or Protective Order litigation, practitioners do not need to prove specific dates for every act. By establishing an "anchor date" (such as a holiday or birthday) and a consistent "frequency" (such as "every weekend"), a party can legally satisfy the evidentiary burden for a pattern of conduct through "evidentiary math.""
City of Houston v. Ezzeddine
COA14
In City of Houston v. Ezzeddine, the 14th Court of Appeals addressed whether conclusory labels such as "inadequate" or "misleading" are sufficient to survive a Rule 91a motion to dismiss. The case involved a fatal collision where the plaintiffs alleged that temporary traffic signage was insufficient but failed to provide specific factual details regarding the signs' appearance or placement. When challenged, the plaintiffs argued they could not provide more detail because discovery had not yet opened. The court rejected this "discovery trap" defense, clarifying that Rule 91a is a gatekeeping mechanism designed to dispose of meritless claims before discovery costs are incurred. The court held that because the plaintiffs provided only legal conclusions and descriptors rather than essential factual allegations, the claims had no basis in law and must be dismissed with prejudice.
Litigation Takeaway
"A plaintiff cannot avoid a Rule 91a dismissal by claiming they need discovery to uncover the facts necessary to support their claim. To survive a motion to dismiss in Texas, a petition must contain specific factual predicates—the 'who, what, where, and when'—rather than mere legal labels or adjectives. In family law, this is a powerful tool to shut down vague allegations of fraud or waste before expensive forensic accounting or depositions begin."
York v. York
COA13
In York v. York, a mother sued her son and daughter-in-law after they convinced her to sell her home and provide over $119,000 to build a 'granny flat' on their property, only to divert the funds for their own home improvements and lock her out. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a $122,550 judgment in favor of the mother, focusing on the jury's finding of fraud. The court analyzed the timing of the financial transactions—specifically that the children contracted for their own renovations within days of receiving the mother's money—and concluded there was sufficient evidence that the children never intended to fulfill their promises. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1, the court held that because the fraud finding independently supported the full damages award, it was unnecessary to review the additional claims of breach of contract and promissory estoppel.
Litigation Takeaway
"In multi-generational property disputes, pleading and proving fraud is a powerful strategy; if a judgment is supported by a robust fraud finding, an appellate court can affirm the entire award without even considering more technical contract-based defenses."
Elborno v. State
COA14
In Elborno v. State, a defendant challenged his ten-year sentence because the trial court failed to offer him the right of allocution—the opportunity to personally plead for mercy or identify legal bars to sentencing. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed both the common law right to mitigation and the statutory requirements under Article 42.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that the common law right to allocution is forfeited if a defendant fails to object at the time of sentencing. Additionally, the court ruled that while the trial court is statutorily required to ask if there is any reason sentence should not be pronounced, the failure to do so is harmless error unless the defendant can show that a specific legal bar (pardon, incompetency, or mistaken identity) actually applied.
Litigation Takeaway
"In quasi-criminal family law enforcement proceedings, the right to speak in mitigation before being sentenced to jail is a 'use it or lose it' right; counsel must object immediately if a judge moves to pronounce confinement without providing an opportunity for allocution, or the issue is waived for appeal."
Sprueill v. Martinez
COA01
In Spruell v. Martinez, an appellant sought to challenge a family law order but failed to file her appellate brief by the required deadline. Despite receiving a formal warning from the First Court of Appeals that her case was at risk of dismissal, the appellant did not file the brief or request an extension. The court analyzed the case under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3, which allows for the involuntary dismissal of an appeal when a party fails to comply with procedural requirements or court notices. Because the appellant ignored the court's delinquency notice, the court held that the appeal must be dismissed for want of prosecution, effectively ending the case without reviewing the underlying legal merits.
Litigation Takeaway
"Appellate deadlines are strict and unforgiving; failing to file a brief or respond to a court's warning will result in the permanent loss of your right to appeal, regardless of the merits of your case."
Williams v. McLeod
COA02
In Williams v. McLeod, an appellant's challenge to a trial court's ruling was dismissed after they failed to pay the required $205 filing fee or submit a mandatory docketing statement. Despite receiving multiple deficiency notices and an extension of time from the clerk's office, the appellant remained unresponsive. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 5, 32.1, and 42.3(c), which collectively authorize the involuntary dismissal of an appeal when an appellant fails to comply with administrative requirements or court orders. The court held that because the appellant failed to cure the identified deficiencies after being given ample opportunity, the appeal must be dismissed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Administrative precision is just as vital as legal strategy; missing a filing fee or a docketing statement can result in the immediate dismissal of your appeal before a judge ever reviews the merits of your case."
MacIvor v. Zuehl Airport Flying Community Owners Association, Inc.
COA06
In a dispute over property assessments, a homeowners association sought to compel arbitration based on a 2015 resolution that purportedly amended the subdivision's covenants. The property owner challenged the existence of the agreement, arguing the amendment was never validly adopted. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order compelling arbitration, holding that the party moving for arbitration bears the initial evidentiary burden to prove the existence of a valid agreement under traditional contract principles. Because the association failed to provide evidence that the amendment was legally executed, the "presumption" favoring arbitration was never triggered, and the resulting arbitration award was declared void.
Litigation Takeaway
"The "strong policy favoring arbitration" does not excuse a party from proving that a contract actually exists. If a spouse or business partner attempts to enforce an arbitration clause in a modified agreement, trust amendment, or draft settlement, you can block the referral to arbitration by challenging the legal formation of that document. The court must confirm the agreement's existence before the arbitrator can take over."
In re K.N., M.N., and M.N., Children
COA02
The Department of Family and Protective Services sought to terminate the parental rights of a mother and father following a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and unlivable home conditions. On appeal, the parents challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the trial court's endangerment findings, and the mother argued her due process rights were violated when the trial proceeded in the absence of a witness. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, analyzing the parents' pattern of conduct under Texas Family Code \u00a7 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). The court held that persistent domestic violence and chronic substance abuse constitute an endangering environment, and further ruled that the mother failed to preserve her due process claim because she did not file a sworn motion for continuance as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 251.
Litigation Takeaway
"Endangerment findings are often based on a cumulative pattern of behavior, such as the intersection of domestic violence and substance abuse, rather than a single incident. Furthermore, trial counsel must strictly adhere to procedural requirements for missing witnesses; a general due process objection will not preserve error on appeal without a written, sworn motion for continuance and a formal offer of proof regarding the witness's expected testimony."
In the Interest of C.B., a Child
COA02
In this parental termination case, the Mother filed her notice of appeal one day after the 20-day deadline required for accelerated appeals. Although the filing occurred within the 15-day grace period—which typically triggers an 'implied motion' for an extension—the Court of Appeals issued a jurisdictional inquiry requesting a reasonable explanation for the delay. The Mother failed to respond to the court's inquiry. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3 and 10.5(b), concluding that while an extension can be granted for late filings within the grace period, the appellant still bears the burden of providing a reasonable justification. Because the Mother offered no explanation, the court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"In accelerated family law appeals, the 20-day filing deadline is strictly enforced and is not extended by motions for a new trial. If you miss the deadline but file within the 15-day grace period, you must proactively file a motion—or respond to court inquiries—with a 'reasonable explanation' for the delay; failing to justify the tardiness will result in a jurisdictional dismissal."
Budko v. Mukhar
COA01
After initiating an appeal, Appellant Angelina Budko requested a period of abatement to pursue mediation. Following the abatement, and before the appellate court issued an opinion on the merits, Budko filed an unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the request under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), which allows for dismissal upon an appellant's motion if no other party has filed a notice of appeal. The court held that because the procedural requirements were met and no opinion had been rendered, the appeal would be reinstated and dismissed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Utilize the 'abatement for mediation' strategy as a strategic off-ramp in appellate litigation. By securing an abatement and subsequent voluntary dismissal under TRAP 42.1(a)(1) before an opinion is issued, practitioners can finalize settlements reached in mediation while avoiding the risk of an adverse appellate ruling or unfavorable precedent."