Opinion Library

Child Custody

Stanley Lewis II v. The State of Texas

COA14

Stanley Lewis II appealed his intoxication manslaughter conviction, arguing that the victim's extreme intoxication (.233 BAC) and potential presence in the lane of traffic—rather than his own impairment—were the true causes of the fatal accident. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the causation requirements under the Texas Penal Code, determining that Lewis’s failure to maintain a single lane, his increased speed, and his failure to brake established a sufficient "but-for" causal link to the death. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that a defendant's criminal liability is not negated by the victim’s concurrent negligence or intoxication when the defendant’s own impaired actions led to the fatal maneuver.

Litigation Takeaway

"In custody disputes involving substance abuse, a parent cannot escape a finding of endangerment by simply pointing to the other parent's "unclean hands" or concurrent intoxication. This case demonstrates that if a parent’s impairment leads to a dangerous maneuver or failure to avoid an accident, the other party's conduct is legally irrelevant to the determination of fault and safety risk."

Ronald Adams a/k/a Ron Adams v. Gary Upshaw

COA05

The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s refusal to dismiss a defamation lawsuit under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). The dispute arose after the president of a youth sports organization sent communications regarding the failure to conduct background checks on a sex offender, identifying the plaintiff as the organization's representative during the relevant period. The court analyzed the case under the TCPA framework, determining that child safety in sports is a "matter of public concern," which shifted the burden to the plaintiff to prove his case with "clear and specific evidence." Because the plaintiff failed to meet this heightened evidentiary threshold for all elements of defamation, the court held the suit must be dismissed and remanded the case for an award of attorney's fees to the defendant.

Litigation Takeaway

"In 'crossover' defamation suits involving child safety or parental fitness, the TCPA is a powerful defensive shield. Plaintiffs cannot rely on vague allegations; they must provide specific, high-quality evidence at the very start of the case or face mandatory dismissal and the obligation to pay the defendant’s legal fees."

In Re Marisol Garza

COA13

In a contract dispute that lasted over eleven years, the defendant moved for dismissal for want of prosecution after a 46-month period of total inactivity by the plaintiff. The trial court denied the motion, but the Thirteenth Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief. The appellate court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a and the court's inherent power, determining that the burden to prosecute a case rests solely on the plaintiff. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion because the plaintiff failed to show good cause for the extensive delays, and the COVID-19 pandemic did not justify a nearly four-year lapse in activity.

Litigation Takeaway

"Don't let 'zombie' litigation linger; if an opposing party files a suit to secure temporary orders and then abandons the case for years, you can force a dismissal. The duty to move a case forward belongs entirely to the person who filed it, and even significant events like the COVID-19 pandemic do not excuse years of total inactivity."

Evidence

Adame v. The State of Texas

COA13

The defendant was convicted of animal cruelty after admitting to squeezing and stomping a pet cockatoo that died shortly thereafter. On appeal, the defendant argued the evidence was insufficient because the State failed to provide expert medical testimony or a necropsy to prove the cause of death, and claimed his admissions were unreliable due to his intoxication. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that expert testimony is unnecessary when an injury's effects are visually obvious to a layperson. The court further determined that a jury, as the sole judge of credibility, may rely on a defendant's inculpatory admissions even if they are made while intoxicated or contain factual inaccuracies.

Litigation Takeaway

"Expert veterinary testimony and formal necropsies are not required to prove animal cruelty in cases where the injury is obvious to a layperson. Family law practitioners can use this 'evidentiary shortcut' to more efficiently establish patterns of coercive control, family violence, or 'best interest' factors using only lay testimony, photos, and the opposing party's admissions."

Modifying the Parenting Plan

Reginald Donell Rice v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

COA13

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's dismissal of an inmate's lawsuit, holding that Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows for the immediate dismissal of claims supported by false affidavits of poverty. The court analyzed the conflict between the specific requirements of Chapter 14 and the general procedural protections of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. It concluded that because Chapter 14 is a specialized statute designed to curb frivolous inmate litigation, trial courts have the discretion to dismiss such suits without holding an evidentiary hearing or requiring service of process if the inmate's certified trust account statement contradicts their claimed income.

Litigation Takeaway

"When facing a family law filing from an incarcerated parent, immediately subpoena their certified inmate trust account statement; any discrepancy between their deposits and their affidavit of indigence allows for a dismissal under Chapter 14 without the need for a hearing or service of process."

Modifying Child Support

Owens v. Johnson

COA01

In Owens v. Johnson, a military service member sought to reduce his child support payments, claiming his income had decreased due to changes in his service status and a significant increase in insurance costs. Despite his testimony, he failed to provide official financial documentation, such as Leave and Earnings Statements (LES), to support his claims. The trial court chose to credit the mother's testimony and disbelieve the father's uncorroborated assertions, setting a higher support amount and confirming child support arrears. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, emphasizing that trial judges are the sole judges of witness credibility and that a party's self-serving testimony can be disregarded if it lacks objective corroboration.

Litigation Takeaway

"When seeking to modify child support, testimony is not a substitute for a paper trail. If you claim a decrease in income but fail to produce readily available financial records like pay stubs or tax returns, the court has the discretion to completely disregard your testimony and maintain your current support obligations."

Family Violence & Protective Orders

Griffin v. Cruz

COA01

In this case, an appellant sought to challenge a protective order issued by a Brazoria County district court. However, the appellant failed to fulfill basic administrative requirements, specifically the payment of appellate filing fees and clerk’s record costs. Despite receiving multiple deficiency notices and warnings from the First Court of Appeals, the appellant neither remitted payment nor filed a statement of indigence. The court analyzed the case under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 5, 37.3(b), and 42.3, concluding that the failure to advance the record was the appellant's fault. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, leaving the original protective order undisturbed.

Litigation Takeaway

"Success in the appellate court requires more than just a good argument; it requires strict adherence to administrative deadlines. Failing to pay filing fees or arrange for the record—or failing to prove you cannot afford them—can result in your appeal being dismissed before the court ever considers the merits of your case."

Family Violence & Protective Orders

CALEB MICHAEL EUGENE WILLEY v. MABELL OSIRIS ORTALES EUCEDA

COA14

In Willey v. Euceda, an appellant sought to challenge a protective order issued by a Harris County district court. However, the appellant failed to make financial arrangements for the clerk’s record, which is a required step for an appeal to proceed. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals issued multiple warnings and a formal order requiring proof of payment, but the appellant never responded. Analyzing the case under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 35.3(c) and 37.3(b), the court determined that the appellant had failed to prosecute the appeal. As a result, the court held that the appeal must be dismissed, leaving the trial court's protective order fully enforceable.

Litigation Takeaway

"Administrative and clerical requirements in an appeal are just as important as the legal arguments themselves. In family law cases, where protective orders can have long-lasting consequences on custody and visitation, failing to pay the record fee or file a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment will result in a quick dismissal for want of prosecution. Always ensure your procedural "house" is in order to prevent losing your right to appeal on a technicality."

Omoregie v. TPS Will Clayton, LLC

COA01

In an interlocutory appeal from a Harris County district court order compelling arbitration and staying the case, the First Court of Appeals considered whether it had jurisdiction to review an order that sends the dispute to arbitration. Applying the rule that interlocutory appellate jurisdiction exists only by statute, the court examined Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 51.016 (FAA orders) and 9 U.S.C. § 16, which expressly bars interlocutory appeals from orders staying litigation and compelling arbitration. The court also found no Texas statutory authority (including under the TAA) permitting an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion to compel arbitration (as opposed to orders denying arbitration). Because the order did not dispose of all parties and claims and no statute authorized immediate review, the court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

Litigation Takeaway

"If the trial court compels arbitration and stays your case, you generally cannot take an immediate appeal—so you must treat the compel-arbitration hearing as a make-or-break event, build a clean record, and consider mandamus only in the rare case of a clear abuse of discretion with no adequate appellate remedy."

Safe Way Carrier, LLC v. Yurii Pavlichko

COA01

In an appeal from a Harris County judgment, the appellant missed the opening-brief deadline and then ignored the First Court of Appeals’ delinquency notice giving an additional ten days to file a brief or seek an extension. Applying Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.3 and 43.2(f), the court treated the failure to comply with the briefing rules and clerk’s notice as abandonment of the appeal and dismissed the case for want of prosecution, rendering the trial court’s judgment effectively final. The court also dismissed any pending motions as moot.

Litigation Takeaway

"Appellate deadlines are unforgiving: if you miss your brief deadline, respond immediately to a TRAP 42.3 delinquency notice with a filed brief or a motion for extension—silence will likely end the appeal and leave the trial-court judgment intact (and any pending motions moot)."