Search Cases

The Texas Supreme Court clarified the standard for modifying a custody order under Texas Family Code § 156.101. The Court held that a material and substantial change in circumstances must be proven before the trial court may consider whether modification serves the child's best interest. The Court emphasized that the two-pronged test requires threshold proof of changed circumstances as a gatekeeping function, separate from the best-interest analysis.

The Texas Supreme Court established the foundational factors for determining the best interest of a child in custody proceedings. The Court set forth a non-exclusive list of factors that courts should consider, which has become the standard framework used in virtually every Texas custody case since its publication.

The Texas Supreme Court addressed the circumstances under which a trial court may restrict a parent's constitutional right to travel by imposing geographic restrictions on the primary conservator's residence. The Court held that geographic restrictions on a parent's domicile must be justified by the child's best interest and that the restriction must be narrowly tailored.

The Texas Supreme Court held that a spouse may recover tort damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress within the context of a divorce proceeding. This landmark decision recognized that interspousal tort immunity does not bar claims for extreme and outrageous conduct between spouses, even when those claims arise in the marital context.

The court addressed the calculation of child support when a parent is self-employed and has variable income. The court held that the trial court must consider all available evidence of actual income, including tax returns, business records, and lifestyle evidence, rather than simply accepting the obligor's claimed income at face value.

The court addressed a landlord's obligation to return a security deposit under Texas Property Code § 92.103. The court held that a landlord who fails to return a security deposit or provide an itemized accounting within 30 days of the tenant vacating is presumed to have acted in bad faith. This presumption shifts the burden to the landlord to show good cause for retention.

The court addressed what constitutes a valid itemized list of deductions from a security deposit. The court held that a landlord's deduction list must be specific enough to allow the tenant to meaningfully evaluate each claimed deduction. Vague entries like 'cleaning' or 'damages' without further detail are insufficient.

The court addressed the requirements for a valid notice to vacate under Texas Property Code § 24.005 prior to filing a forcible detainer action. The court held that the notice must strictly comply with statutory requirements, including identifying the property, stating the landlord's demand, and providing the required time period for compliance.

The Texas Supreme Court established the framework for premises liability claims involving slip-and-fall accidents in retail establishments. The Court held that an invitee must prove that the property owner had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition and failed to exercise ordinary care to reduce or eliminate the risk.

The Texas Supreme Court refined the premises liability framework for slip-and-fall cases by addressing what evidence is sufficient to establish constructive knowledge of a hazardous condition. The Court held that mere proof that a substance was on the floor is insufficient — the plaintiff must present some evidence of how long the condition existed.

The court addressed the standard for proving causation in a rear-end collision case and the proper calculation of damages for soft tissue injuries. The court held that in rear-end collision cases, negligence is generally presumed and the burden shifts to the following driver to explain why the collision was not their fault.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that mandatory blood draws in DWI cases under the Texas Transportation Code's implied consent provisions violate the Fourth Amendment when conducted without a warrant. The court ruled that the implied consent statute does not create an exception to the warrant requirement and that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not automatically create exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless blood draw.

The court addressed the validity of a DWI blood warrant and the sufficiency of probable cause affidavits. The court held that a blood warrant affidavit must contain specific articulable facts establishing probable cause that the suspect was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated — not merely conclusory statements.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals addressed when a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense and clarified the low threshold for raising the defense. The court held that a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if there is some evidence, from any source, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, that would support the defense — even if that evidence is weak, contradicted, or not credible.

The court addressed whether a traffic stop was unlawfully extended when an officer continued to detain the driver after completing the purpose of the original stop. The court held that once the reason for a traffic stop is resolved, the officer must allow the driver to leave unless reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity exists.

The court addressed a tenant's remedies when a landlord fails to make repairs affecting health and safety. The court held that under Texas Property Code § 92.056, a tenant must follow specific procedural steps — including written notice and reasonable time for repair — before exercising self-help remedies such as repair-and-deduct or lease termination.

The court addressed the intersection of federal housing law and Texas eviction procedures. The court held that public housing authorities must comply with both federal due process requirements and Texas Property Code eviction procedures. A housing authority cannot circumvent federal hearing rights by simply filing a state court forcible detainer action.

The court addressed the requirements for expert reports in healthcare liability claims under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 74. The court held that an expert report must provide a fair summary of the expert's opinions regarding the applicable standard of care, how the defendant breached that standard, and how the breach caused the plaintiff's injury.

The court addressed the calculation of future damages in a personal injury case involving permanent impairment. The court held that future medical expenses and lost earning capacity may be proven through expert testimony establishing the reasonable probability that such expenses will be incurred, without requiring mathematical certainty.

The court addressed the scope of the Castle Doctrine under Texas Penal Code § 9.32, specifically whether the presumption of reasonableness applies when the defendant was the initial aggressor who later withdrew from the confrontation. The court held that the Castle Doctrine presumption does not apply to initial aggressors, but an initial aggressor who clearly withdraws and communicates withdrawal may regain the right to use defensive force.