https://texasappeals.org/topics/expert-testimony/Clinical descriptions of the Texas appellate decisions drawing the most press coverage.Hugo -- gohugo.ioen-usMon, 13 Apr 2026 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2026/04/heb-v-peterson/Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2026/04/heb-v-peterson/The court held that a plaintiff responding to a no-evidence summary judgment motion must present some evidence of how long a dangerous condition existed, and that evidence of earlier roof leaks in other parts of a grocery store did not raise a fact issue on the grocer’s constructive knowledge of a puddle in the toy aisle. The court reversed the Thirteenth Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment.https://texasappeals.org/2026/02/ex-parte-mejia-actual-innocence/Mon, 09 Feb 2026 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2026/02/ex-parte-mejia-actual-innocence/In a brief per curiam opinion with no stated analysis, the court agreed that Mejia established actual innocence, set aside her three convictions, and remanded her to the custody of the Travis County sheriff to answer the indictment. Judge Finley, joined by Judge Parker, agreed she is entitled to relief but would have granted it under Article 11.073 rather than on actual-innocence grounds.https://texasappeals.org/2025/12/abbott-v-lulac-redistricting-stay/Mon, 08 Dec 2025 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2025/12/abbott-v-lulac-redistricting-stay/In an unsigned order on an application for a stay, the Court found that Texas was likely to show the three-judge District Court failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith and failed to draw an adverse inference from the challengers’ lack of an alternative map. The order rests on a “preliminary evaluation” and does not decide the racial-gerrymandering claim.https://texasappeals.org/2025/03/holberg-v-lumpkin-capital-habeas/Mon, 10 Mar 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/03/holberg-v-lumpkin-capital-habeas/A divided panel held that evidence the State did not disclose—that a jailhouse witness was a paid police informant—was favorable and material impeachment evidence under Brady v. Maryland, and that the state court’s contrary ruling was an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. Judge Duncan dissented on materiality.