News

Q: What happened in Cuevas v. State?

In Cuevas v. State, No. PD-0144-25 (Tex. Crim. App. April 2, 2026), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed a Fort Bend County murder conviction because prosecutors repeatedly told the jury that the defendant could not claim self-defense since he was involved in a drug deal. That was a misstatement of Texas law. The actual law only cost him the presumption of reasonableness not the self-defense claim itself. The court found the error caused actual harm and ordered a new trial.

Q: What is the Almanza harm standard in Texas criminal appeals?

Under Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985), the standard for reversible jury charge error depends on whether the error was objected to at trial. If the error was objected to, the conviction is reversed if the defendant suffered 'some harm.' Courts evaluating harm look at the jury charge as a whole, arguments of counsel, the evidence, and any other relevant record information.

Can Politics Lead to Divorce? How to Save Your Marriage Across the Political Divide

Varghese Summersett — Fri, 08 May 2026 01:55:34 Z

In an era of unprecedented political polarization, the dinner table has become a battleground, social media a source of constant friction, and the evening news a trigger for marital conflict. For many couples, the question is no longer hypothetical: can political differences actually end a marriage?

The short answer is yes, but with significant nuance. Political disagreements alone rarely destroy strong marriages, but in relationships already strained by communication problems or eroded respect, politics can be the accelerant that turns smoldering tension into a divorce filing.

The Numbers Tell a Sobering Story

Research consistently shows that political polarization has crept into American bedrooms. According to studies analyzing voter registration records, roughly 30 percent of married couples belong to different political parties than their spouse. While that statistic suggests many couples successfully bridge the divide, other data points are less reassuring.

A widely cited Wakefield Research study found that 29 percent of Americans either married or in a relationship said the current political climate was causing tension with their partner. More striking: 11 percent of Americans reported ending a romantic relationship over political differences. Among millennials, that figure jumped to 22 percent. A separate finding revealed that one-third of married respondents said they would consider divorce if their spouse supported a particular political candidate.

These numbers reflect a real shift. Politics, which was once a topic couples could politely avoid at the dinner table, has become tied to identity, morality, and core values in ways that make agreeing to disagree feel impossible to many people.

Why Politics Hits Harder Than It Used To

A generation ago, political differences in marriage often amounted to disagreements about tax policy or foreign affairs, important, but rarely existential. Today, political identity has expanded to encompass deeply held positions on:

Reproductive rights and body autonomy
Climate change and environmental policy
Gun ownership and public safety
Immigration and national identity
Vaccines, public health, and personal liberty
LGBTQ+ rights and family structure
Race, equality, and historical memory

When a spouses political stance touches on any of these issues, the disagreement often feels less like a difference of opinion and more like a difference in fundamental moral values. That is what makes modern political conflict in marriage so corrosive.

Researchers studying romantic relationships have also identified a power dynamic at play. When one partner is significantly more politically vocal or dominant, the quieter spouse may suppress their views to keep the peace, sometimes building up resentment over years. Couples with a more egalitarian dynamic often face the opposite problem. Both partners feel entitled to be heard, and neither is willing to back down.

The Foundation Matters More Than the Politics

Family law attorneys and marriage counselors tend to agree on one critical point: politics rarely destroys a marriage on its own. What politics does is expose the foundation underneath.

Couples with strong communication, mutual respect, and shared core values typically weather political storms intact. They may roll their eyes at each others news preferences. They may avoid certain topics during election season. They may even argue passionately. But the underlying respect and affection they have for each other allow them to come back together after the disagreement passes.

Couples who already struggle with contempt, poor communication, or chronic disrespect rarely have that buffer. For them, politics becomes one more battleground in an ongoing war, and often, it is the battleground that pushes someone to finally call a divorce attorney.

What You Can Do to Save Your Marriage

If you find yourself increasingly at odds with your spouse over politics, the situation is not hopeless. The following strategies, drawn from psychologists, marriage researchers, and family law practitioners, can help.

Decide what matters more, your marriage or being right

This is the foundational question. Couples who consistently prioritize their relationship over the satisfaction of winning political arguments tend to navigate conflict more effectively. That doesnt mean abandoning your principles. It means recognizing that your spouses vote is not a referendum on your worth as a person, and your vote is not a referendum on theirs.

Stand in your spouses shoes

One of the most powerful pieces of advice on this subject comes from a simple exercise: try to articulate your spouses political position in a way they would recognize as fair and accurate. Most political disagreements in marriage escalate because each person is arguing against a caricature of the others view rather than the actual view. The goal isnt to agree, its to understand.

Identify your shared values, not just shared positions

Couples who disagree on policy often agree on underlying values: they both want their children to be safe, they both want a fair country, they both want their family to thrive. Returning to those shared values during a heated moment can defuse the immediate conflict.

Establish ground rules around news and social media

Watching cable news together when you disagree about politics is often a recipe for disaster. So is following each others social media activism. Many couples find peace by agreeing to consume political content separately, or by designating certain rooms or times of day as politics-free zones.

Use difficult conversations as opportunities, not weapons

When you do discuss politics, treat it as an exploration rather than a debate. Useful prompts include: What core values are reflected in our differing views? How have our life experiences shaped these views? Has our political ideology shifted over the years, and if so, why? Are there policies we actually agree on? A conversation framed as curiosity rather than combat often reveals more common ground than either spouse expected.

Dont try to convert each other

Few things damage a marriage faster than the persistent feeling that your spouse is trying to fix you. If your goal in every political conversation is to bring your spouse around to your side, you are not having a discussion, you are conducting a campaign. Most spouses can sense the difference, and they resent it.

Consider professional help early

Marriage counselors and therapists who specialize in conflict resolution can provide tools and frameworks that are difficult to access in the heat of an argument. Couples often wait too long to seek counseling, treating it as a last resort rather than a tune-up.

Signs You May Be Beyond Reconciliation

While many marriages can survive political differences, some cannot. Recognizing the warning signs can help you make clear-eyed decisions about your future. Consider whether the following patterns are present in your relationship.

Contempt has replaced disagreement

Disagreement is healthy. Contempt, the feeling that your spouse is fundamentally beneath you, deluded, or morally inferior because of their political views, is one of the strongest predictors of divorce identified by relationship researchers. If you find yourself rolling your eyes, sneering, or speaking to your spouse with disgust, the marriage is in serious trouble.

Politics has invaded every part of your life together

When political conflict spills into parenting decisions, financial choices, where you live, who you socialize with, and even physical intimacy, the issue is no longer politics, it is the inability to function as a couple.

Your children are caught in the crossfire

Children who watch their parents express genuine hatred toward each others political views absorb lasting lessons about conflict, trust, and contempt. If your political disagreements are damaging your kids, that is a critical signal.

You no longer respect your spouse as a person

This is different from disagreeing with their views. It is the conclusion that your spouse is fundamentally not who you thought they were. Once respect is gone, rebuilding it is extraordinarily difficult.

The relationship has become emotionally or verbally abusive

Political disagreement that escalates into name-calling, threats, controlling behavior, or sustained verbal cruelty has crossed a line. No political argument justifies abuse, and no marriage built on abuse is worth preserving in its current form.

You have stopped trying

When one or both spouses no longer make any effort to bridge the divide, when avoidance has replaced engagement, and resignation has replaced hope, the marriage may already be over in everything but name.

Counseling has been tried and failed

A good marriage counselor can work miracles when both spouses are committed. But if you have been through counseling in good faith and the same destructive patterns continue, that is meaningful information.

A Final Thought

Marriages have survived wars, depressions, infidelity, illness, and the loss of children. They can survive political differences too, when both partners are willing to do the work. What they generally cannot survive is contempt, disrespect, and the slow conviction that the person across the breakfast table is the enemy.

If you and your spouse find yourselves on opposite sides of the political spectrum, take comfort in this: 30 percent of married couples are in your shoes, and most of them are still married. The political climate will shift. Issues that seem all-consuming today will fade. What will remain is the marriage you built, or the one you let politics tear down.

Choose carefully which one you want to walk away with.

If you are considering divorce or facing serious marital difficulties, consulting with both a qualified marriage counselor and an experienced family law attorney can help you understand your options before making any final decisions. We can help. Contact Varghese Summersett at 817-203-2220 to schedule a consultatio with a family law attorney.

Parents File Wrongful Death Suit Against TXDOT After Daughter Killed on Dangerous Highway

Varghese Summersett — Fri, 08 May 2026 00:24:22 Z

The parents of an 18-year-old college student who was killed in a crash on a poorly constructed and maintained state highway have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Texas Department of Transportation.

The 14-page lawsuit, filed March 17 in the 146th District Court in Belton, seeks fair and reasonable compensation for the death of Romi Bomar who died from injuries suffered in a wreck at a recurring location for crashes.

At the time of the wreck, Ms. Bomar was driving to Temple College, where she was pursuing a degree in cardiac sonography, said Attorney Damian Williams, a partner at the law firm of Varghese Summersett. She was a young woman on the threshold of her adult life full of promise, ambition, and purpose.

This wasnt just a tragic accident; it was preventable. Officials have long known that this stretch of road, particularly this curve, is hazardous, especially in wet conditions. Yet, they failed to address it. That failure has had devastating consequences. Sadly, Romi is not the first life lost there and without change, she may not be the last. TxDOT must be held accountable for ignoring a known and deadly danger.

At 10:30 a.m. on September 24, 2025, Bomar was driving east on State Highway 6 between Owl Creek Road and Burgandy Lane in Bell and Coryell Counties when her 2014 Jeep hydroplaned on the wet roadway while navigating a dangerous curve. She lost control of her vehicle and crossed into the westbound lane, where she collided head-on with a 2012 Ford F-350 pickup.

She later died from her injuries.

In the year of Ms. Bomars fatal crash, at least a dozen motor vehicle crashes had already occurred along the same stretch of SH 36, the lawsuit states. Notably, months before Ms. Bomars death, another motorist was killed on the same stretch of highway after colliding head-on with a truck in wet road conditions.

The lawsuit goes on to say that TxDOT Sgt. Bryan Washko publicly acknowledged to local media that it is not uncommon for crashes to occur in this area, especially when the roadway is wet.

The lawsuit accuses TxDOT of gross negligence, saying it was responsible for the ownership, maintenance, and control of the roadway surface, drainage, signage, and safety conditions on SH 36, including the dangerous stretch between Owl Creek Road and Bergandy Lane.

The suit says Ms. Bomars injuries were proximately caused by TxDOTs negligent, careless, and reckless disregard of its duty. Specifically, the lawsuit lists the following acts and omissions by TxDOT:

Failing to properly maintain the roadway surface of SH 36 in a safe condition;
Failing to remediate or repair the danger at this stretch of SH 36 in a reasonable time;
Failure to give any warning to unsuspecting drivers of the unreasonably dangerous and unsafe condition;
Failing to take an action to eliminate or reduce the unreasonable risk of danger presented by the condition of the highway; and
Failing to reduce the posted speed limit or implement interim traffic control measures on the subject stretch of SH 36 during or in anticipation of wet weather conditions, despite actual knowledge of the recurring crash history at this location.

Williams said crashes at this section of SB 36 is a pattern that can no longer be ignored.

TxDOT has the resources and a responsibility to make sure that our highways are safe for the people who rely on them every day, Williams said. No parent should have to bury a child because of the governments gross negligence. Romis parents want to make sure that meaningful change comes from this tragedy.

Read Lawsuit Here

Texas Appeals Court Reverses Marian Frasers Murder Conviction, Orders New Trial

Varghese Summersett — Thu, 07 May 2026 07:28:24 Z

A Texas appeals court, yet again, has reversed the murder conviction of a Waco daycare owner in the death of a four-month-old baby, setting up the possibility of her release from prison and to stand trial for a third time.

On May 6, 2026, the Seventh Court of Appeals in Amarillo reversed Marian Frasers murder conviction and remanded the case to the 19th District Court in McLennan County for further proceedings.

In September of last year, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that evidence admitted at trial was obtained illegally by the police. The case was then remanded to the Seventh Court of Appeals to decide whether that improperly seized evidence harmed the defendant. That same court concluded that it did, and sent the case back to the trial court.

Minutes after the jurys verdict three years ago, I explained that we had excellent grounds for appeal, said Defense Attorney Christy Jack, who tried the case with attorney Letty Martinez. I said I wouldnt be surprised if we werent back for Round 3. And here we are as predicted.

The case stems from the March 4, 2013, death of four-month-old Clara Felton at Frasers in-home Waco daycare, Spoiled Rotten. Fraser was first convicted in 2015 and sentenced to 50 years in prison.

In 2017, the Amarillo Court of Appeals reversed that conviction, holding that her conduct did not meet the statutory definition of felony murder. After serving two years in prison, Fraser was released on an appeal bond.

Fraser was retried in 2023, convicted of felony murder, and again sentenced to 50 years in prison.

Her appeal was handled by attorney Lisa Mullen a highly respected appellate attorney across Texas.

In 2024, the Amarillo court affirmed Frasers second conviction. However, in 2025, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that a search warrant for Frasers electronic devices lacked a sufficient connection to the alleged offense and remanded the case for a constitutional harm analysis.

With the May 6th opinion, Frasers second conviction is now vacated, and the case returns to the trial court. Prosecutors must now determine whether to pursue a third trial, taking into account the higher courts findings.

Read Opinion Here

Timeline of State of Texas v. Marian Fraser

March 4, 2013 Four-month-old Clara Felton is found unresponsive during nap time at Spoiled Rotten day care in Waco. She is pronounced dead at Providence Hospital at 4:12 p.m. That evening, Detective Mike Alston (Waco PD) and Elaine Gatewood (Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing) inspect the day care. Spoiled Rotten is ordered closed for the remainder of the week.

March 5, 2013 Clara Felton is autopsied in Dallas.

March 11, 2013 Spoiled Rotten reopens after passing inspections.

Spring 2013 Detective Alston interviews Fraser at police headquarters. McLennan County DA Abel Reyna recuses his office because of his close friendship with the Feltons; the case was assigned to Tarrant County prosecutors.

August 78, 2013 Fraser is charged with injury to a child causing death (a first-degree felony) and surrenders to police.

January 2014 Fraser is indicted on a charge of felony murder.

May 1821, 2015 (First Trial) Trial begins in McLennan County. The state calls witnesses over four days; the defense (Gerald Villarrial) presents five witnesses in one afternoon, including Fraser herself. The jury deliberates less than 30 minutes, convicts Fraser of felony murder, and sentences her to 50 years in prison.

2017 Seventh Court of Appeals (Amarillo) Fraser I Fraser v. State, 523 S.W.3d 320. Reverses Fraser’s conviction, holding her conduct did not meet the statutory definition of felony murder. After two years incarcerated, Fraser is released on a $50,000 bond pending the state’s appeal.

2019 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 583 S.W.3d 564. In an 81 decision, reverses the Amarillo court and reinstates the felony murder framework, but signals (in a footnote) concerns about the trial court’s jury instructions. Case is remanded.

2019 Seventh Court of Appeals (Amarillo) Fraser II 593 S.W.3d 883. On remand, rules the trial courts jury instructions were slanted in favor of the state and reverses the conviction on that basis. The Court of Criminal Appeals declines to intervene. Fraser is released, but eligible to be retried.

October 2020 McLennan County DA Barry Johnson announces the office will retry Fraser on the same felony murder charge. New defense team: Christy Jack and Letty Martinez of Varghese Summersett (Fort Worth).

April 2023 Texas Forensic Science Commission Releases a scathing report on Ernest Lykissa and ExperTox, who was responsible for testing hair samples of children who attended Spoiled Rotten Daycare. Lykissa agrees to stop practicing forensic analysis in Texas and admits the original hair samples were destroyed. Prosecutors agree not to use the ExperTox results at the second trial, though Judge David Hodges allows the Spoiled Rotten parents to testify so long as they don’t reference the tests.

March 2023 (Second Trial) After lengthy jury selection from a pool of about 350, the trial proceeds over seven days in McLennan County. A juror is caught following a reporter on social media; the defense’s mistrial motion is denied and the juror is replaced. The jury again convicts Fraser of felony murder and again sentences her to 50 years.

October 1, 2024 Seventh Court of Appeals (Amarillo) Fraser III (initial) 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 7068. Affirms Fraser’s conviction and sentence, rejecting both her suppression challenge and (on procedural grounds) her extraneous-offense objections.

June 4, 2025 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals oral argument Judges express skepticism toward the state’s position, particularly on whether giving Benadryl constitutes an “act clearly dangerous to human life.”

September 2025 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Fraser III 726 S.W.3d 253. Holds that the probable-cause affidavits for both warrants (to seize and to search Fraser’s electronic devices) lacked a sufficient nexus between the offense and the devices, resting only on the affiant’s personal beliefs and suspicion. Reverses in part and remands to Amarillo to determine (1) whether the suppression error caused constitutional harm under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(a) and (2) the merits of the extraneous-offense objections if necessary.

May 6, 2026 Seventh Court of Appeals (Amarillo) Opinion on Remand In a memorandum opinion by Justice Yarbrough (joined by Chief Justice Parker and Justice Doss), the court reverses Fraser’s conviction and remands to the trial court. Key findings:

The nature of the error admission of illegally seized evidence from Fraser’s electronic devices was “serious.”
The state “placed great emphasis” on the suppressed evidence, displaying the text messages as enlarged posters, previewing them in opening statements, calling Logan to testify cumulatively about them, and returning to them repeatedly through both guilt/innocence and punishment closings (including framing the messages as Fraser “build[ing] her defense . . . as any guilty person would do”).
Most tellingly on weight: out of approximately 130 exhibits admitted over a multi-week trial, the only exhibit the jury asked to review during deliberations was the text exchange between Fraser and her daughter Logan and the jury returned a guilty verdict less than 90 minutes later.
The court rejected the state’s Leday argument (that no objection was made to similar evidence at trial), citing Thomas v. State Fraser preserved error through her motion to suppress and did not unambiguously abandon that claim.
The court rejected the state’s reliance on Motilla and overwhelming-evidence arguments, noting weight of evidence is only one factor and not dispositive.
Holding: the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the conviction or punishment. The suppression issue’s resolution made the extraneous-offense question unnecessary to address.

Current posture Fraser’s second conviction is vacated. The case returns to the 19th District Court in McLennan County. The McLennan County DA’s office must now decide whether to attempt a third trial. Prosecutor William Hix previously told Texas Monthly he would “try it a hundred times.”

After the Verdict: A Resource for Jurors

Varghese Summersett — Tue, 05 May 2026 06:42:41 Z

If you served on a jury in a criminal case particularly one involving violence, sexual assault, abuse, or the death of a child or adult you may be feeling things you didn’t expect. This guide is for you. It explains what those reactions are, what helps, and where to find support.

A note before we begin: every resource listed here serves men, women, and people of all gender identities. Some of the organizations have the word “Women” in their name for historical reasons, but they explicitly serve all genders, all ages, and all kinds of trauma exposure. If you are a male juror reading this, please do not skip past those resources. They are for you, too.

You did something hard.
You served on a jury. You may not have asked for the case you were given. You may have heard graphic testimony, seen disturbing photographs, watched video evidence, or listened to a survivor describe what happened to them. You may have looked at autopsy reports, crime scene images, or recordings you cannot now un-see.

And then, when it was over, you went home.

There was no debrief. No one walked you through what you had just absorbed. The court thanked you for your service, the bailiff dismissed you, and the rest of the world expected you to pick your kids up from school, go to the grocery store, and answer emails as if nothing had changed.

Something did change. This guide is here to help you understand what you may be feeling, why it is happening, and what you can do about it.

Part 1: What is Happening to Me?

Secondary traumatic stress is real.

You don’t have to be the victim of a crime to be affected by one. Researchers, therapists, and trauma specialists have known for decades that exposure to graphic descriptions and images of violence even from a distance can produce real psychological symptoms. This is sometimes called secondary trauma, vicarious trauma, or, when it persists, secondary traumatic stress.

It is well-documented in groups that face this kind of exposure as part of their work: emergency room staff, child protective services workers, war reporters, criminal defense and prosecution teams, and jurors in serious cases.

If you are noticing changes in how you feel, sleep, think, or relate to people since your trial ended, you are not weak. You are not broken. You are having a normal human reaction to abnormal information. This is true regardless of your gender, age, profession, or how “tough” you usually are.

Common reactions after exposure to traumatic material:

Intrusive thoughts or flashbacks of testimony, photos, or evidence
Nightmares or disrupted sleep
Difficulty concentrating or remembering things
Trouble functioning at work, at home, or at school
Sleeping or eating too much, or too little
Strained relationships with family, friends, or coworkers
Sadness, anger, irritability, or guilt
Feeling emotionally numb, or feeling everything too intensely
Hypervigilance checking locks, scanning crowds, distrusting strangers
Shaken assumptions about safety, fairness, or human nature
Physical symptoms: headaches, nausea, fatigue, racing heart

Most of these reactions ease within a few weeks. Some take longer. A small number become persistent enough that they need professional attention. Knowing the difference is the first step.

Why jurors are particularly vulnerable.
Several features of jury service can intensify the impact of what you heard:

You did not choose the exposure. You were summoned. Unlike a journalist or detective who selected this work, you were placed in front of disturbing material as a civic obligation.
You could not look away. During testimony or evidence presentation, you could not close your eyes, leave the room, or change the subject. Your job required full attention.
You could not talk about it during the trial. Jurors are instructed not to discuss the case including with spouses, friends, or therapists until deliberations end. Bottling up reactions for days or weeks can compound their impact.
You bore the weight of the decision. Unlike spectators, you had to weigh the evidence and decide. That responsibility doesn’t simply evaporate when the verdict is read.
You may feel isolated afterward. Few people in your life understand what you sat through. Even loving family members may not know what to ask.

None of this is a flaw in you. It is a feature of the role you were asked to play.

A note specifically for men.

Men sometimes hesitate to seek help after traumatic exposure partly because of the cultural expectation that men should “handle it,” and partly because some of the best resources for trauma survivors are housed in organizations with names that sound like they serve only women.

We want to be clear: every resource listed in this guide serves men. The Women’s Center of Tarrant County, despite its name, explicitly serves “survivors of all ages and genders.” One Safe Place serves all genders. SafeHaven runs a dedicated Men’s Program in Arlington. The DA’s Victim Assistance Coordinators serve every victim and witness, regardless of sex. If something you saw or heard is bothering you, you are entitled to the same help anyone else would get.

Part 2: What Can I Do?

In the first days and weeks.

The earliest period after a difficult trial is when small, deliberate choices matter most. A few things that have helped other jurors:

Expect the reactions, and let them be normal. Your mind is processing. Trying to force the feelings to stop, or being angry at yourself for having them, generally makes them worse. Treat them like weather real, sometimes intense, and passing.

Talk about it now that you can. Once the trial is over, the gag is lifted. You are allowed to discuss your experience, your reactions, and even your impressions of the case (within the limits your judge described). Pick someone you trust who can listen without rushing to fix anything. A spouse, a close friend, a clergy member, a therapist, or a fellow juror can all be appropriate, depending on the conversation.

Move your body. Trauma lives in the nervous system, not just in thoughts. Walking, stretching, swimming, gardening, or any sustained physical activity helps the body discharge the stress chemistry that built up while you sat still in a courtroom for days.

Sleep, eat, hydrate. These sound obvious. They are also the first things to slip. Protect them on purpose for at least a few weeks.

Limit additional intake. This is not the moment for true-crime podcasts, graphic news, or violent entertainment. Your tolerance for that material is temporarily lower, and there is no reward for testing it.

Delay big decisions if you can. Major life choices made in the immediate aftermath of intense stress are often regretted. If a decision can wait three or four weeks, let it.

Write it down. Many people find it useful to write by hand or in a private document about what they witnessed and what they are feeling. Not to publish, not to share, just to externalize. The act of putting words to a memory often reduces its grip.

Resist isolation, even when you want it. Withdrawing feels protective. Beyond a few days, it usually isn’t. Keep at least one or two of your normal social rhythms intact, even if you don’t feel like it.

Part 3: When it’s More than That.

Most jurors find that within four to six weeks, the sharpest edges have dulled. Sleep returns. The intrusive images visit less often. Life resumes its normal proportions.

Sometimes it doesn’t. Reach out to a mental health professional if any of the following are true:

Symptoms have not improved, or are getting worse, after about a month.
You cannot sleep, or you sleep but wake exhausted, on most nights.
Intrusive memories, images, or sounds from the trial are interfering with work, parenting, or relationships.
You are using alcohol, cannabis, or other substances more than usual to settle yourself.
You are avoiding things that didn’t used to bother you driving past the courthouse, watching certain shows, being around children, leaving the house.
You feel emotionally numb, disconnected from people you love, or like you are watching your own life from the outside.

You are having thoughts of harming yourself or someone else.

If you are in crisis right now

If you are having thoughts of suicide or self-harm, or you are in immediate danger, please reach out tonight not next week.

988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline Call or text 988
Crisis Text Line Text HOME to 741741
MHMR Tarrant County Mental Health Crisis Line (24/7) Call or text 1-800-866-2465
Emergency 911

These lines are answered around the clock by trained counselors. They serve men, women, and people of all gender identities. You do not have to be “severely” in crisis to call. They are also there for the in-between moments.

Part 4: Who Can Help in Tarrant County?

Tarrant County has a strong network of free or low-cost resources for people coping with the aftermath of violent crime including jurors who have been exposed to it secondhand. Every organization listed below serves men, women, and people of all gender identities, unless otherwise noted.

The Women’s Center of Tarrant County Rape Crisis & Victim Services.

Serves all genders, despite the name. Their own materials state: “We serve survivors of all ages and genders who have experienced both non-stranger and stranger abuse/assault.” They also serve significant others and family members of victims, which can include people who are emotionally affected by exposure to a case.

Master’s-level therapists provide individual and group counseling. They also offer crisis intervention, criminal justice accompaniment, and assistance with Crime Victims’ Compensation forms. All services are free.

24-Hour Crisis Hotline: 817-927-2737
Appointments (Fort Worth or Arlington): 817-927-4039
Fort Worth Office: 1723 Hemphill St., Fort Worth, TX 76110 817-927-4040 MonFri, 8:30 a.m. 5:00 p.m.
Arlington Satellite Office: 401 W. Sanford, Ste. 1200, Arlington, TX 76011 817-548-1663 MonThu, 8:30 a.m. 5:00 p.m.
Online: womenscentertc.org

One Safe Place Family Justice Center

A multi-agency Family Justice Center in Fort Worth that brings together advocates, counselors, law enforcement, and legal services under one roof. Originally focused on domestic violence, but works with anyone affected by crime and trauma. Serves all genders. Main Office: 1100 Hemphill Street, Fort Worth, TX 76104

Phone: 817-916-4323
Hours: Walk-in accepted between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m.
Satellite Office: GRACE, 837 E. Walnut St., Grapevine, TX 76051
Online: onesafeplace.org

SafeHaven of Tarrant County

Provides crisis services, counseling, and shelter for those affected by domestic violence and runs a dedicated Men’s Program in Arlington for male survivors and male family members.

SafeHaven 24-Hour Hotline (Fort Worth): 817-535-6464
SafeHaven Men’s Program (Arlington): 817-548-0583

Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney Victim Assistance

The DA’s Victim Assistance Coordinators help victims and witnesses of violent crime navigate the criminal justice system. While their primary mandate is direct victims, they can be a useful starting point for referrals and for connecting jurors back into the right service network. Serves all genders.

Victim Assistance: 817-884-2740
Address: Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center, 401 W. Belknap St., Fort Worth, TX 76196
Hours: MonFri, 7:45 a.m. 4:45 p.m.
Family Violence Unit: 817-884-3535

Protective Order Unit: 817-884-1623

Tarrant County Sheriff’s Office Victim Assistance Unit.

Victim Assistance Coordinator: 817-884-3697
Address: 200 Taylor Street, 7th Floor, Fort Worth, TX 76196

Fort Worth Police Department Victim Assistance

FWPD Victim Assistance: 817-392-4390

MHMR of Tarrant County (My Health My Resources)

The county’s largest mental health provider. Offers a 24/7 crisis line, screening, and outpatient mental health and substance use services across more than 50 sites in Tarrant County. Serves all genders and ages, regardless of ability to pay.

Mental Health Crisis Line (24/7): Call or text 1-800-866-2465
To start services: 817-335-3022
Online: mhmrtarrant.org

Texas VINE Victim Information & Notification Everyday

VINE: 1-877-894-8463 (1-877-TX4-VINE)

National resources (for jurors anywhere)

If you served on a jury outside of Tarrant County, or if you simply prefer a national resource, the following are available:

988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline Call or text 988 (24/7)
Crisis Text Line Text HOME to 741741 (24/7)
RAINN National Sexual Assault Hotline 1-800-656-HOPE (4673) rainn.org. Serves all genders.
National Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-7233 thehotline.org. Serves all genders.
Veterans Crisis Line Call 988 then press 1, or text 838255
SAMHSA National Helpline (substance use, mental health) 1-800-662-4357

Find a trauma therapist psychologytoday.com/us/therapists

Part 5: Finding a Therapist

Look for a licensed therapist with experience in trauma. Useful credentials and search terms:

Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC), Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW), Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (LMFT), or psychologist (PhD/PsyD).
Training in trauma-focused therapies such as EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing), Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT), Prolonged Exposure (PE), or Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT).

Experience working with first responders, veterans, or crime victims these clinicians regularly treat the kind of exposure-based stress jurors experience.

Psychology Today’s online directory lets you filter by specialty, insurance, gender preference, and location. Most employee assistance programs (EAPs) through your workplace also offer several free sessions and can refer you out.

Don’t underestimate a conversation with your primary care doctor, either. They can screen for sleep issues, evaluate physical symptoms, and refer you into a behavioral health network.

Part 6: For the People Around You

If you have a spouse, partner, parent, adult child, or close friend who served on a difficult jury, this section is for you.

What helps.

Asking, then listening. “How are you doing with it?” is enough. Let them answer in their own words and at their own pace. You don’t have to fix anything.
Believing them. If they say something they saw or heard is bothering them, take it seriously. “It was just a trial” minimizes a real experience.
Patience with mood, sleep, and presence. They may be more irritable, withdrawn, or distractable than usual. Most of this passes.
Watching for the signs in Part 3, and gently raising the idea of professional help if those signs persist.
Taking care of yourself. Living alongside someone in distress is its own quiet weight. The same resources in this guide are available to you.

What doesn’t help.

Asking for graphic details out of curiosity.
Telling them they should be “over it by now.”
Assuming silence means they’re fine, or assuming distress means they’re not.
Pushing them into social or family events they’re not ready for.
Assuming this only affects women, or that men in your life don’t need to talk about it.

A Final Word about Jury Service.

Jury service is one of the few civic obligations Americans share. Most of the time, it is uneventful. Sometimes, the case you are handed asks more of you than you expected more attention, more endurance, more contact with the worst of what people can do to each other.

That contact leaves a mark. It can also leave a deeper, quieter understanding of why this work matters: that real people had no choice but to be in the events you were asked to evaluate, and that the system of careful, deliberate strangers weighing the evidence is for all its flaws what we have.

Take care of yourself the way you would take care of a friend who had just been through what you went through. With patience. Without judgment. And with the recognition that asking for help is not a sign that something has gone wrong with you. It is a sign that something heavy was placed in your hands, and you are setting it down the right way.

“Healing is a process. Give yourself plenty of time to heal.”

Quick References

Crisis (24/7) all genders served:

988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline Call or text 988
Crisis Text Line Text HOME to 741741
MHMR Tarrant Mental Health Crisis Line 1-800-866-2465

Emergency 911

Tarrant County trauma & victim services all genders served:

The Women’s Center of Tarrant County, 24-hr Crisis Hotline 817-927-2737
The Women’s Center, appointments 817-927-4039
One Safe Place 817-916-4323
SafeHaven 24-hr hotline 817-535-6464
SafeHaven Men’s Program (Arlington) 817-548-0583
Tarrant County DA Victim Assistance 817-884-2740
Fort Worth Police Victim Assistance 817-392-4390
MHMR Tarrant 817-335-3022

National all genders served:

RAINN National Sexual Assault Hotline 1-800-656-HOPE (4673)
National Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-7233
Veterans Crisis Line 988, press 1
SAMHSA National Helpline 1-800-662-4357
Find a therapist psychologytoday.com/us/therapists

Thank you for your service. Please be gentle with yourself.

Texas Supreme Roadmap for Slip and Fall Cases

Varghese Summersett — Sat, 25 Apr 2026 16:26:18 Z

What H-E-B v. Peterson Means for Injured Texans

If you slip and fall in a Texas grocery store, gas station, or restaurant, can you sue? The answer just got more complicated. On April 10, 2026, the Texas Supreme Court handed down H-E-B, LP v. Peterson a unanimous opinion that makes it harder than ever to win a slip-and-fall case in Texas. Here’s what happened, what it means, and what you need to do if you’ve been hurt on someone else’s property.

What Happened to Marissa Peterson?

Marissa Peterson was shopping in the toy aisle at an HEB grocery store when she slipped on a clear puddle of water, fell, and hurt her knee. She looked up and saw water dripping from a ceiling rafter directly above the puddle. Her companion noticed buckets, signs, and trash cans scattered around other parts of the store catching leaks from a known roof problem tied to a remodeling project.

The store had been leaking for over a year. It had rained earlier that day. No HEB employee had walked down the toy aisle in the two hours before Peterson fell. Seems like a winning case, right?

The Texas Supreme Court said no. Peterson lost.

Your browser does not support iframes. Download the PDF.

Download the full opinion (PDF)

The Rule: You Have to Prove How Long the Hazard Was There

To win a slip-and-fall case in Texas, an injured customer (called an “invitee”) must prove four things:

The property owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition
The condition was unreasonably dangerous
The owner failed to use reasonable care to fix it or warn about it
That failure caused the injury

The fight in almost every slip-and-fall case is over element one: knowledge. There are two flavors:

Actual knowledge an employee saw the spill, caused it, or was told about it
Constructive knowledge the spill was there long enough that the owner should have discovered it

Most slip-and-fall cases turn on constructive knowledge, because store employees rarely admit they saw the spill before you fell. And constructive knowledge requires temporal evidence – proof of how long the hazard sat there before the injury.

Why Peterson Lost

Peterson offered a stack of evidence that would seem powerful to most jurors:

The roof had been leaking for a year
It rained two hours before her fall
Water was dripping from the rafter above the puddle
The puddle was about two feet across
No HEB employee had walked down the aisle in two hours
HEB had a heightened inspection protocol during rainstorms – and didn’t follow it

The Texas Supreme Court walked through every piece of evidence and rejected each one. The Court’s reasoning came down to a single principle: evidence about what caused a hazard is not evidence of how long the hazard existed.

The rain stopping two hours earlier? That’s about cause, not duration inside the store.
Water dripping from above? Also cause – it doesn’t tell you when the puddle started forming.
The size of the puddle? Size alone doesn’t let a jury guess at duration.
HEB’s inspection protocol? Internal policies don’t raise the legal standard of care.
Roof leaks elsewhere in the store? Not relevant, because they weren’t in the toy aisle where Peterson fell.

The Court relied on a 1996 case called City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez, which held that “the leaky roof was not itself a dangerous condition; it could only cause a dangerous condition.” Knowledge has to match the time and place of the injury not some earlier situation that produced it.

What This Means If You’ve Been Hurt

The Texas Supreme Court has now reinforced this rule three times in two years (Brookshire Grocery v. Taylor, Albertsons v. Mohammadi, and now Peterson). The message is clear: scant circumstantial evidence is not enough. Texas slip-and-fall plaintiffs need real, concrete proof of duration to survive summary judgment.

Here’s what makes a case strong under the current law:

Surveillance video showing the spill present minutes or hours before the fall
Employees walking past the hazard in the moments before the injury (the winning fact pattern from Brookshire Brothers v. Aldridge)
Sweep logs or inspection sheets showing gaps in cleaning
Witnesses who saw the spill earlier in the day
Physical evidence like dried edges, dirt, multiple cart tracks – but only when combined with other duration evidence
An employee admission that they saw the spill, caused it, or were told about it

Why Acting Fast Matters More Than Ever

The single biggest reason slip-and-fall cases fail in Texas is loss of evidence. Most stores overwrite their surveillance video within 30 days – sometimes within a week. Sweep logs go missing. Witnesses scatter. Memories fade.

If you’ve been injured on someone else’s property, the clock is already running. You need an attorney sending preservation letters, demanding video, identifying witnesses, and locking down sweep logs immediately. By the time you’ve recovered enough to think about a lawsuit, the evidence that wins the case may already be gone.

The Bottom Line

Texas slip-and-fall law is harder on plaintiffs than the law in many other states. The Texas Supreme Court has made clear it will not relax the burden of proof, even in cases with sympathetic facts. But “harder” does not mean “impossible.” Cases with video, employee proximity, sweep log gaps, or witness testimony about duration still win – and win regularly.

The difference between a winning case and a dismissed one often comes down to what gets preserved in the first 30 days.

Hurt in a Slip-and-Fall? Talk to a Lawyer Now.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a fall at a grocery store, retail location, restaurant, or any other property in Texas, contact our personal injury team for a free consultation. We’ll evaluate your case, send preservation letters to protect critical evidence, and tell you honestly whether your claim has a path forward under current Texas law.

Nabors: A Post-Chohan Roadmap for Texas Plaintiffs

Varghese Summersett — Sun, 19 Apr 2026 03:27:09 Z

Since the Texas Supreme Court decided Gregory v. Chohan in June 2023, civil plaintiffs’ lawyers across Texas have been keeping a close eye on how to best prove up noneconomic damages. The Chohan plurality threw cold water on the old “shocks the conscience” standard, rejected “unsubstantiated anchoring” arguments (fighter jets, expensive paintings, cost-per-mile calculations), and held that plaintiffs must demonstrate “a rational connection, grounded in the evidence, between the injuries suffered and the amount awarded.” But the plurality also declined to “place any limits . . . on the reasons by which a plaintiff might justify the amount.”

That ambiguity left a lot of trial lawyers guessing. The Dallas Court of Appeals’ March 26, 2026 decision in SL Nabors Commercial/Residential Roofing, Ltd. v. Allen, No. 05-24-00854-CV, offers a roadmap to proving up noneconomic damages verdict post-Chohan.

Unable to display PDF. Click here to download.

What Happened in Nabors

Rico Delmon Allen was injured in a July 19, 2021 car accident caused by an SL Nabors roofing truck. Liability was directed against the defendant at the close of evidence. Nabors conceded it could not present evidence to support submitting a negligence question to the jury. Damages were the only live issue, and the evidence the jury heard was substantial.

Allen went to the emergency room hours after the crash with head, shoulder, and back pain. Two days later, he saw chiropractor Dr. Zachary Weaks and reported neck, back, finger, arm, shoulder, leg, and hip pain along with dizziness, headaches, numbness, and sleep loss. Even with muscle relaxers, Allen rated his back, finger, and arm pain at 10 out of 10, his shoulder and rib pain at 9, and his neck pain at 8. He attended twenty chiropractic visits over approximately eleven months. At his final evaluation, he still reported severe difficulty with overhead reaching, household chores, making a bed, carrying anything over ten pounds, and washing his back.

Allen completed detailed Neck and Back Indices documenting the functional consequences. He rated his sleep as “completely disturbed” with 5-7 hours of sleeplessness, reported being unable to lift or carry anything, experiencing pain that restricted his social life to his home, and suffering moderate headaches that came frequently. An MRI revealed disk protrusion at C-3 and C-4 with potential narrowing of the spinal canal. Dr. Zeshan Chaudhry diagnosed cervical and lumbar facet mediated pain and performed three fluoroscopy-guided steroid injections between May and September 2022. Allen stayed awake for each injection because one of his “biggest fears in life” was going under anesthesia and “not waking up to see my kids.” Each injection cost $7,950. He described them as “the worst thing ever.” He also underwent shoulder surgery to repair a torn labrum.

Both treating physicians testified the damage was permanent. Dr. Chaudhry explained that a herniated disk will not heal itself and is “forever compromised in terms of its integrity.” Dr. Brett Boeke, Allen’s chiropractic expert, testified that the injury “actually ages the disks much more” and expected Allen to be susceptible to future injuries and to “need pretty constant pain meds” for the rest of his life.

The real-world consequences were equally concrete. Allen’s annual income dropped from roughly $80,000 to $40,000 after he was forced to leave field sales work for a call center and then bounce between unstable jobs. His mother moved in to help raise his two young children because pain medication left him “groggy and sleepy.” He stopped coaching his son’s basketball team. He could not help his kids with homework because sitting and reading for extended periods gave him headaches. He was evicted because he could not afford the payments. His marriage ended; he testified his injuries “basically shut the door” on the relationship. He testified that the accident “drained” him mentally and that he lost his faith. He was 44 years old at trial.

Worth noting is what Allen’s counsel did not do, because SL Nabors argued on appeal that some of it was required post-Chohan. Allen’s counsel did not offer a per-diem calculation like the $16-per-day figure approved in Garza or the $25-per-day National Guard wage anchor approved in Elizondo. He did not multiply a daily dollar figure by Allen’s days of suffering or by his remaining life expectancy. He did not present expert testimony assigning a specific dollar value to Allen’s pain, mental anguish, or loss of enjoyment of life. He did not introduce evidence quantifying what amount of money would enable Allen to better cope with his injuries or restore his emotional health, one of the examples the Chohan plurality offered as a potential rational basis. SL Nabors argued this absence was fatal, that without a mathematical formula or quantifying expert, the jury was left to “simply pick a number and put it in the blank.” The Dallas Court disagreed, and that disagreement is the core of why this opinion matters.

On this record, the jury awarded Allen:

$250,000 for past physical pain and mental anguish
$100,000 for future physical pain and mental anguish
$200,000 for past physical impairment
$115,000 for future physical impairment
$188,743.73 for past medical care
$200,000 for future medical care
$25,000 for past loss of earning capacity

SL Nabors appealed, challenging the noneconomic damages and future medical expenses as legally and factually insufficient. The Dallas Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Justice Barbare, affirmed the damages awards in full.

The Court’s Analysis and Why It Matters

The Framework the Court Applied

The court restated the Chohan test cleanly. To survive a legal-sufficiency challenge to noneconomic damages, a plaintiff must show:

The existence of compensable mental anguish: evidence of the “nature, duration, and severity” of the anguish suffered, and
A rational connection, grounded in the evidence, between the injuries suffered and the amount awarded.

If “the reason offered in justification of the amount awarded is rational and does not partake of prohibited motives, courts should defer to the factfinder’s verdict.”

That framing matters. The Chohan plurality set up a two-part test, and Nabors shows us what a successful plaintiff’s showing looks like under each prong.

Prong One: Existence of Compensable Mental Anguish

The evidence Allen marshaled was thorough and specific, the kind of record that makes prong one straightforward.

Medical evidence with specificity. Allen immediately sought emergency care the day of the accident. Two days later, he was examined by a chiropractor and reported pain at specific numerical levels on a 1-to-10 scale for eight separate body regions. He completed Neck and Back Indices with numerical ratings for specific functional limitations, including sleep disruption, inability to lift, inability to concentrate, and restriction of social life to the home. He had twenty chiropractic visits over eleven months. He underwent an MRI that revealed disk protrusion at C-3 and C-4. He received three fluoroscopy-guided facet joint steroid injections, staying awake because his “biggest fear in life” was not waking from anesthesia, not waking up to see his kids. He had shoulder surgery to repair a labrum tear.

Testimony about real-world impact. Allen’s income dropped from roughly $80,000 to $40,000 a year. He lost his job as a field sales representative and had to move to a call center. He was eventually evicted. His marriage ended. His mother moved in to help care for his two young children because pain medication left him groggy. He stopped coaching his son’s basketball team. He could no longer help his kids with homework because sitting and reading for that long gave him headaches.

Medical opinion on permanence. Dr. Chaudhry explained that a herniated disk will not heal itself and is “forever compromised.” Dr. Boeke testified Allen would be susceptible to future injuries and would “need pretty constant pain meds.”

This is the “nature, duration, and severity” evidence Chohan demands, and the Dallas court had no trouble finding it legally and factually sufficient.

Prong Two: The Rational Connection

Here’s where the opinion becomes genuinely useful. Allen’s counsel did two things at closing that the court explicitly credited:

He suggested specific ranges anchored to the evidence. Counsel suggested “at least $500,000” for past physical pain and mental anguish and between $200,000 and $250,000 for future physical pain and suffering.
He tied those numbers to an identifiable rationale: “lost time,” memories “you don’t get back,” “things that are sticking with him for the rest of his life.”

The jury then awarded less than counsel requested: $250,000 for past pain and mental anguish (half of the suggested $500,000) and $100,000 for future (below the suggested $200,000 to $250,000 range).

The court made that point explicitly: “The jury’s awards were less than the recommended ranges by Allen’s attorney in closing argument; therefore, the jury did not ‘simply pick a number and put it in a blank,’ as SL Nabors argues.” The court cited the Dallas Court’s own post-Chohan decision in Bilal v. Khan, where a $140,000 past mental anguish award was upheld in part because it was “far less than the $1.75 million the plaintiff asked the jury to award.”

The practical takeaway for plaintiffs’ lawyers: a rational suggested range, tied to evidence, that comes in higher than what the jury ultimately awards, gives reviewing courts a concrete way to find the “rational connection” Chohan requires.

The Other Cases: Garza and Elizondo

The Nabors court then surveyed what other Texas appellate courts have done post-Chohan, and this is where the opinion becomes especially valuable as a roadmap.

Garza v. Escamilla, 712 S.W.3d 718 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2025, no pet.)

In Garza, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld noneconomic damages where plaintiff’s counsel offered the jury a “simple calculation”: sixteen dollars per day, or one dollar for every waking hour in the day during which the plaintiff experienced loss. That per-unit anchor, tied to the plaintiff’s lived experience rather than to extrinsic values like fighter jets, passed muster.

Elizondo v. Reyna, No. 04-24-00284-CV, 2025 WL 2462764 (Tex. App.San Antonio Aug. 27, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.)

In Elizondo, the San Antonio Court approved a more sophisticated per-day calculation. Counsel suggested $25 per day, an amount the evidence showed was approximately one hour of National Guard pay, multiplied by the 1,625 days between the crash and closing argument, for past mental anguish and past physical impairment. For future damages, counsel used $10 to $20 per day multiplied by the plaintiff’s 11,680-day remaining life expectancy.

Notice what made these calculations work. They weren’t pulled from nothing. The Garza dollar-per-waking-hour was anchored to the plaintiff’s daily experience. The Elizondo $25-per-day was anchored to an hour of the plaintiff’s actual wage. Neither was the kind of “unsubstantiated anchoring” Chohan rejected. Neither was analogized to a fighter jet, a Rothko painting, or the defendant’s revenue.

The Critical Caveat: Per-Diem Calculations Are Not Required

Here is the point plaintiffs’ lawyers most need to internalize from Nabors. After discussing Garza and Elizondo, the Dallas Court wrote:

“However, to the extent SL Nabors argues that suggested calculations are required to withstand a sufficiency challenge, we do not interpret Gregory as changing the law to require such evidence to uphold non-economic damage awards. Rather, these cases illustrate one method by which a plaintiff may assist the jury in calculating damages.”

This matters enormously. Some commentators read Chohan as essentially mandating a mathematical formula, that plaintiffs now had to break down noneconomic damages into per-day, per-hour, or per-event units to survive appellate review. Nabors says no. A per-diem or unit-based calculation is one permissible way to create a rational connection, not the only way.

In Nabors itself, Allen’s counsel did not use a per-diem calculation. He suggested ranges tied to themes, including lost memories, lost time, and lifelong consequences, and the court held that sufficient because the reasons given were “rational and grounded in the evidence.”

Physical Impairment: The Same Framework Applies

The court’s analysis of the $200,000 past and $115,000 future physical impairment awards tracked the same approach. Physical impairment, sometimes called loss of enjoyment of life, must be “substantial and extend beyond any pain, suffering, and mental anguish.” The evidence here showed exactly that:

Allen had coached his son’s basketball team; he stopped two years before trial
He played soccer with his daughter; “on pause”
Family bowling and swimming trips; no longer possible
He couldn’t lift his own son due to pain
He felt he was “letting down his children”

The court applied the same Chohan framework and found the rational connection between evidence and dollar amount. Notably, the charge included a specific instruction that the jury should not “twice compensate” for the same loss. The court presumed the jury followed that instruction.

Future Medical Expenses: A Separate Standard, but Parallel Reasoning

Future medical expenses are governed by a different doctrinal test than noneconomic damages, but the court’s treatment is instructive. A plaintiff must show a “reasonable probability” that future expenses will be necessary. Expert testimony is preferred but not required.

The $200,000 future medical award was supported by:

Dr. Chaudhry and Dr. Boeke both testifying future care was likely
$188,743.73 in past medical expenses (unchallenged) over three years
Each steroid injection cost $7,950; Allen had three pretrial
Allen testified he had not sought further treatment because he could not afford it
He wanted mental health counseling he had not been able to access
He was 44 at trial, with a long life ahead

The court noted the jury awarded only about $11,000 more for future medical than past, a modest extrapolation from the proven three-year cost. That’s exactly the kind of evidence-grounded reasoning that survives appellate review.

What This Means for Plaintiffs’ Lawyers: Practical Takeaways

For the trial bar reading this case after Chohan, a few things crystallize.

First, build the “nature, duration, and severity” record with specificity. Generalized testimony about sadness and hardship will not carry the day. Numerical pain ratings, functional indices, specific activities the client can no longer do, specific relationships damaged, specific opportunities lost: that’s the foundation. Nabors shows how much detail is enough.

Second, the anchor in closing argument matters, and it must be tied to the evidence. Fighter jets, paintings, and cost-per-mile arguments are dead. But per-diem calculations anchored to the client’s actual experience (Garza), per-hour calculations tied to the client’s actual wages (Elizondo), or suggested ranges tied to thematic descriptions of loss (Nabors) all work.

Third, ask for more than you expect, but not absurdly more. Courts have repeatedly cited the fact that jury awards came in below plaintiff’s requests as evidence the jury engaged in rational deliberation. A suggested range that is itself grounded in the evidence, with the jury coming in lower, is the strongest post-Chohan record.

Fourth, connect the dollars to the evidence thematically. Even without a per-diem calculation, counsel in Nabors tied the requested number to identifiable concepts: memories lost, lifelong consequences, time that cannot be recovered. Those are not “unsubstantiated anchors.” They are articulated reasons grounded in the plaintiff’s testimony.

Fifth, preserve the physical impairment distinction. Physical impairment is a separate element of damages that “encompasses the loss of the injured party’s former lifestyle.” Develop the evidence of lifestyle loss, including hobbies, family activities, coaching, and parenting limitations, as a distinct category from pain and mental anguish, and make sure the charge preserves the distinction.

A Note on Verdict Comparisons

One method not at issue in Nabors, but flagged by the Chohan plurality in footnote 12, is verdict comparison, the practice of justifying a noneconomic damages amount by reference to amounts awarded in factually similar cases. The Chohan plurality did “not foreclose the possibility that comparison to other cases may play some role in a plaintiff’s effort to establish that a given amount of noneconomic damages is reasonable and just compensation rationally grounded in the evidence.” The plurality declined to “define the permissible uses of verdict comparisons.” The Nabors court did not address this method because Allen’s counsel did not use it, and SL Nabors did not argue its absence was fatal. Plaintiffs’ lawyers considering a verdict-comparison approach should watch for the first Texas appellate opinion to engage with the method substantively, because until then, the metes and bounds of permissible comparison remain open.

What This Means for Lay Readers

If you’re reading this as someone who has been injured or who has lost a loved one, here’s the plain-English version. Texas used to ask appellate courts a fuzzy question about noneconomic damages: “Does this number shock the conscience?” The Texas Supreme Court in 2023 said that question was too elastic and demanded something more rigorous, a rational reason, grounded in the evidence, for the dollar amount awarded.

That ruling was widely perceived as a blow to injured plaintiffs because it overturned a $15 million wrongful death verdict. But Nabors shows that plaintiffs can absolutely still win substantial noneconomic damages awards post-Chohan. They just have to build the record carefully and argue the dollar amount to the jury in a principled way. A plaintiff with detailed medical records, specific functional limitations, credible testimony about lifestyle loss, and a lawyer who ties the requested dollar amount to the evidence in closing can expect the verdict to hold up on appeal.

Bottom Line

Nabors is the decision plaintiffs’ lawyers have been waiting for. It affirms that:

Substantial noneconomic damages (here, $665,000 across four categories) can survive Chohan review
Per-diem or unit-based calculations (Garza, Elizondo) are permitted but not required
A principled suggested range, tied to themes grounded in the evidence, with the jury awarding less than requested, creates the “rational connection” Chohan demands
Detailed medical evidence, functional indices, and specific testimony about lost activities and relationships build the foundation

For lawyers preparing the next wave of personal injury trials in Texas, Nabors deserves careful study alongside Chohan, Bilal, Cannon, Garza, and Elizondo. Read together, they sketch out a workable post-Chohan playbook, one that respects the Supreme Court’s demand for rationality while preserving juries’ traditional role in translating human suffering into compensation.

Understanding Domestic Violence Charges in Texas

Varghese Summersett — Sun, 12 Apr 2026 03:02:36 Z

What Are Domestic Violence Charges in Texas?

In Texas, “domestic violence” is not a standalone charge. It is a label applied to assault and related offenses when the alleged victim is a family member, household member, or someone with whom you have a dating relationship. The criminal charge on your paperwork will say something like “Assault Causing Bodily Injury – Family Member” or carry the notation “FM” for family member. What matters is what offense is charged, what the state must prove, and what the consequences are if convicted. This page answers the questions people most commonly have after an arrest.

You've Seen Us On

Understanding the Terminology

What Is the Difference Between Domestic Violence and Family Violence in Texas?

Texas law uses the term “family violence” rather than “domestic violence,” but the two phrases describe the same conduct. Under Texas Family Code Section 71.004, “family violence” means an act by a member of a family or household against another member that is intended to result in physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault, or a threat that reasonably places the person in fear of imminent physical harm. “Domestic violence” is the everyday term most people use, but it is not a term you will find in the Texas Penal Code. On charging documents, the offense will be listed as a specific assault charge with “family member,” “FM,” or “FV” attached to it.

What Is the Difference Between Domestic Violence and Domestic Abuse?

“Domestic abuse” is not a legal term under Texas law. It is a broader social concept that includes patterns of controlling behavior, emotional manipulation, and economic harm, not all of which rise to the level of a criminal charge. “Domestic violence” refers specifically to conduct that constitutes a criminal offense. You can be charged with domestic violence for a single incident of alleged physical contact. There is no charge called “domestic abuse” in the Texas Penal Code.

Who Qualifies as a Family or Household Member Under Texas Law?

The family violence designation applies to a broader group than most people realize. Under Texas Family Code Section 71.003, “family” includes spouses and former spouses, parents of the same child, foster parents and foster children, and other individuals related by blood or marriage. “Household members” under Section 71.005 are those who currently live together or who have lived together in the past. Dating partners, current and former, are also covered under the family violence statute regardless of whether they ever shared a home. This means a charge can carry the family violence designation even in relationships that were brief or never cohabiting.

How Does a Domestic Violence Charge Become a Felony in Texas?

Most first-time domestic violence charges are Class A misdemeanors, punishable by up to one year in county jail and a $4,000 fine. A charge escalates to a felony under several circumstances.

Under Texas Penal Code Section 22.01, assault causing bodily injury to a family or household member becomes a third-degree felony if the defendant has a prior family violence conviction. It also becomes a felony if the assault involved impeding the victim’s breathing or circulation (choking or strangulation). That charge is a third-degree felony on a first offense and a second-degree felony on a subsequent offense. Continuous violence against the family under Texas Penal Code Section 25.11, which requires two or more acts of family violence within a 12-month period, is a third-degree felony regardless of prior convictions. Learn more about felony family violence charges.

What the Prosecution Must Prove

The most common domestic violence charge in Texas is Assault Causing Bodily Injury to a Family Member under Texas Penal Code Section 22.01(a)(1). To convict, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury to a person with whom they have a qualifying family or household relationship. Every element must be established by the prosecution. The defendant has no burden to prove anything. The state carries the entire weight of proof.

In impeding-breath cases under Section 22.01(b)(2)(B), the prosecution must additionally prove that the defendant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly impeded the normal breathing or circulation of the victim by applying pressure to the throat or neck or by blocking the nose or mouth. These cases are treated far more seriously, prosecuted more aggressively, and carry significantly higher bonds.

Bond Amounts for Domestic Violence Charges in Texas

Varghese Summersett has analyzed bond data across the counties where the firm practices. The tables below reflect what courts have actually set for family violence and assault charges in each county. Bond amounts vary based on prior criminal history, severity of alleged injuries, whether a weapon was involved, and the magistrate assigned to the case. An attorney can file a motion to reduce bond in appropriate circumstances.

Tarrant County

Based on an analysis Varghese Summersett completed of over 52,000 bonds in Tarrant County:

Charge	Most Common Bond
Assault Bodily Injury – Family Member (Class A Misdemeanor)	$1,000
Assault FM/HM – Impede Breathing/Circulation (3rd Degree Felony)	$10,000
Assault FM/HM – Prior Conviction (3rd Degree Felony IAT)	$10,000
Continuous Violence Against the Family (3rd Degree Felony)	$5,000

Dallas County

Based on an analysis Varghese Summersett completed of over 64,000 bonds in Dallas County:

Charge	Most Common Bond
Assault Bodily Injury – Family Member (Class A Misdemeanor)	$1,500
Assault FM/HM – Impede Breathing/Circulation (3rd Degree Felony)	$15,000
Assault FM/HM – Prior Conviction (3rd Degree Felony IAT)	$25,000
Continuous Violence Against the Family (3rd Degree Felony)	$10,000

Harris County

Based on an analysis Varghese Summersett completed of over 45,500 bonds in Harris County:

Charge	Most Common Bond
Assault Bodily Injury – Family Member (Class A Misdemeanor)	$1,000
Assault FM/HM – Impede Breathing/Circulation (3rd Degree Felony)	$15,000
Assault FM/HM – Prior Conviction (3rd Degree Felony IAT)	$20,000
Continuous Violence Against the Family (3rd Degree Felony)	$20,000

Denton County

Based on an analysis Varghese Summersett completed of over 12,900 bonds in Denton County:

Charge	Most Common Bond
Assault Bodily Injury – Family Member (Class A Misdemeanor)	$2,500
Assault FM/HM – Impede Breathing/Circulation (3rd Degree Felony)	$10,000
Assault FM/HM – Prior Conviction (3rd Degree Felony IAT)	$10,000
Continuous Violence Against the Family (3rd Degree Felony)	$5,000

Fort Bend County

Based on an analysis Varghese Summersett completed of over 10,200 bonds in Fort Bend County:

Charge	Most Common Bond
Assault Bodily Injury – Family Member (Class A Misdemeanor)	$2,000
Assault FM/HM – Impede Breathing/Circulation (3rd Degree Felony)	$10,000
Assault FM/HM – Prior Conviction (3rd Degree Felony IAT)	$30,000
Continuous Violence Against the Family (3rd Degree Felony)	$20,000

Collateral Consequences: What Else Is at Stake

The jail sentence is often the least of a person’s worries in a domestic violence case. The consequences that flow from a conviction, or even a deferred adjudication, can reshape every area of your life.

Are Domestic Violence Offenses Crimes of Moral Turpitude?

The answer depends on the offense. Texas courts and federal agencies have found that assault-based domestic violence convictions can qualify as crimes of moral turpitude depending on the mental state required and the nature of the conduct. This matters in three specific contexts.

In immigration proceedings, a crime involving moral turpitude can trigger deportation, removal, or inadmissibility for non-citizens. Under federal law (18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(9)), any misdemeanor conviction that qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under the federal definition triggers a lifetime federal firearms prohibition. Immigration courts analyze Texas convictions carefully, and the categorical approach used by federal courts means the specific elements of the Texas offense matter enormously. See our guide on immigration consequences of criminal charges for more detail.

In professional licensing, many Texas licensing boards consider crimes of moral turpitude when reviewing applications or deciding whether to discipline a current licensee. This includes licenses for teachers, nurses, attorneys, physicians, peace officers, and many other regulated professions. A domestic violence conviction may need to be disclosed on renewal applications and can result in disciplinary action.

In court proceedings, a prior conviction for a crime of moral turpitude can be used to impeach your credibility as a witness. If you later testify in a civil matter, a custody hearing, or a future criminal trial, the other side may be permitted to introduce evidence of the conviction to call your honesty into question.

How Will a Domestic Violence Charge Affect My Divorce?

Texas is one of the few states that still allows fault-based divorce. Under Texas Family Code Section 6.002, a spouse can seek divorce on the ground of cruelty. A domestic violence charge or conviction gives the other spouse powerful ammunition to pursue a fault divorce, which can directly affect how the court divides the marital estate. Texas courts can award a disproportionate share of community property to the innocent spouse in a fault divorce. Our attorneys have written in detail about the intersection of domestic violence and divorce and the intersection of family and criminal law.

How Will It Affect Child Custody?

Under Texas Family Code Section 153.004, a court must consider credible evidence of family violence when making conservatorship decisions. A finding of family violence creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding joint managing conservatorship to the party who committed the violence. In practice, this means a domestic violence charge, even one that is still pending, can affect temporary custody arrangements while the criminal case is ongoing. A conviction can severely limit your parental rights going forward.

How Will It Affect My Immigration Status?

Non-citizens face serious immigration consequences from domestic violence convictions. Under the federal Violence Against Women Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act, a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence can lead to removal proceedings. Even deferred adjudication in Texas can trigger immigration consequences in some circumstances, because federal immigration law does not always treat a deferred adjudication the same way Texas state courts do. Anyone who is not a U.S. citizen and is facing a domestic violence charge should speak with an attorney who understands both criminal defense and immigration law before entering any plea.

Can I Lose My Right to Own a Firearm?

Yes, and this is one of the most significant collateral consequences of a domestic violence conviction. Under federal law (18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(9)), any person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence is permanently prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition. This is a lifetime federal ban, not a Texas-specific restriction, and it applies even to misdemeanor convictions. Texas law under Texas Penal Code Section 46.04 additionally prohibits persons subject to certain protective orders from possessing firearms. The loss of gun rights is permanent absent a presidential pardon or a finding that the conviction does not meet the federal definition.

Protective Orders

What Is a Protective Order in a Domestic Violence Case?

A protective order is a civil court order that prohibits the restrained person from having contact with the protected person. In domestic violence cases, protective orders are commonly issued alongside criminal charges. A temporary ex parte protective order can be issued without your presence or knowledge if a court finds there is a clear and present danger of family violence. A final protective order is issued after a hearing where both parties have the opportunity to appear and the court finds that family violence has occurred and is likely to occur again. A final protective order can last up to two years, and under certain circumstances, such as when the conduct was a felony or caused serious bodily injury, a court can issue a lifetime protective order.

An emergency protective order (EPO) is issued automatically by a magistrate at the time of arrest for family violence offenses and typically lasts 31 to 91 days. EPOs are mandatory when the alleged offense involved serious bodily injury or the use of a deadly weapon. You may have one already without fully understanding its terms.

Watch our attorneys explain the difference between protective orders and restraining orders in Texas:

What Happens If I Violate a Protective Order?

Violating a protective order is a separate criminal offense under Texas Penal Code Section 25.07. A first violation is a Class A misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation is a third-degree felony. If the violation involves assault, stalking, or sexual assault, the charge can be elevated further. A violation can also affect your bond conditions in the pending criminal case and may result in your bond being revoked, which means returning to custody while the case remains pending. Varghese Summersett has successfully had warrants for protective order violations rescinded in appropriate cases, but strict compliance with every term of the order is the safest course while your defense attorneys work the underlying case.

Dismissal, Dropped Charges, and Case Outcomes

Can a Domestic Violence Case Be Dismissed in Texas?

Yes. Dismissal is one of several possible outcomes, and Varghese Summersett has secured dismissals of family violence charges across Texas courts. Dismissal most commonly occurs when the evidence is legally insufficient to proceed, when key witnesses become unavailable or recant, when constitutional violations tainted the evidence, or when the defendant successfully completes a diversion program. In Tarrant County’s domestic violence diversion program, eligible defendants may be able to have the charge dismissed upon completing the program’s requirements. Dismissal after diversion does not happen automatically. It must be actively pursued.

What Is Forfeiture by Wrongdoing?

Forfeiture by wrongdoing is a legal doctrine that allows the prosecution to use a witness’s out-of-court statements at trial, even if the witness is unavailable to testify, when the defendant wrongfully caused that unavailability. In domestic violence cases, this most often comes up when the alleged victim recants, refuses to cooperate, or disappears before trial. If the prosecution can show that the defendant persuaded, threatened, or otherwise caused the victim not to testify, the court can allow earlier statements, such as a 911 call or a recorded statement to police, into evidence even without the witness present. This doctrine has significantly changed domestic violence prosecutions. Prosecutors no longer need a cooperative victim to proceed in every case.

Can the Victim Drop the Charges?

This is one of the most common misconceptions in domestic violence law. The alleged victim cannot drop the charges. Only the prosecutor has the authority to dismiss a criminal case. Once law enforcement makes an arrest and the case is filed, the case belongs to the state, not to the complainant. A victim who later changes their account or says they do not want to pursue the matter does affect the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, but it does not end the case. Many prosecutors’ offices in Texas maintain no-drop policies for family violence cases. An experienced attorney understands how to use a recantation strategically, but it does not guarantee dismissal.

What Happens After a Domestic Violence Case Is Dismissed?

A dismissal is not the end of the road. It is the beginning of a separate process. After dismissal, an arrest record still exists and will appear on background checks. To fully clear that record, you must pursue either an expunction or a nondisclosure, depending on how the case was resolved. An attorney can help you understand exactly what your dismissal means and what steps to take next. Read more in our guide on being falsely accused of domestic violence.

Case Results

The following are real outcomes Varghese Summersett has achieved in family violence and related cases. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Continuous Family Violence – Reduced to Class C, Deferred Adjudication +

Client was charged with Continuous Family Violence in Tarrant County, a third-degree felony. The charge was reduced to a Class C Assault by Contact with a 6-month deferred adjudication.

Assault FM/HM with Previous Conviction – Dismissed +

Client faced a felony Assault Family Member/Household Member with Previous Conviction charge in Tarrant County. The case was dismissed.

Warrant for Violation of Protective Order – Rescinded +

Client had a warrant issued for alleged violation of a protective order. Varghese Summersett contacted the investigating detective directly. The detective rescinded the warrant and closed the case.

Continuous Violence Against the Family – DA Rejected Felony Charge +

Client in Parker County faced a potential felony Continuous Violence Against the Family charge. The District Attorney rejected the felony and referred the matter to the County Attorney for a misdemeanor prosecution instead.

Clearing Your Record After a Domestic Violence Case

What Is the Difference Between Nondisclosure and Expunction?

These are two different forms of record relief in Texas, and they are not interchangeable. An expunction fully destroys the record of an arrest. After a successful expunction, you can legally deny that the arrest ever occurred. An order of nondisclosure seals the record from public view, so most employers and landlords cannot see it, but the record still exists and remains accessible to law enforcement, certain licensing boards, and some government agencies. Expunction is the stronger remedy. Nondisclosure is the more limited one. Our blog goes into full detail on getting an expunction in Texas.

Can I Get a Domestic Violence Charge Nondisclosed?

Nondisclosure is heavily restricted for family violence offenses. Under Texas Government Code Section 411.074, a person is not eligible for an order of nondisclosure if the offense is among the statute’s listed exclusions, which includes family violence offenses. In practical terms, most domestic violence convictions and deferred adjudications in Texas are not eligible for nondisclosure. There are narrow fact-specific situations worth discussing with an attorney, but nondisclosure is not generally available after a family violence case.

Can I Get a Domestic Violence Charge Expunged?

Expunction eligibility depends entirely on how the case ended. If the charges were dismissed outright after completing deferred adjudication, you are generally not eligible for expunction because deferred adjudication does not qualify under Texas law. However, if you were arrested but never charged, if the grand jury no-billed the case, if the case was dismissed and the statute of limitations has expired, or if you were acquitted at trial, expunction may be available. A case handled through a diversion program that resulted in dismissal, if structured correctly from the start, may also be eligible. The specific procedural posture of your case determines your options.

2025 Legislative Update: Texas Family Violence Law

Texas made significant changes to family violence law through HB 2492 in 2025. Watch Varghese Summersett attorneys explain what changed and what it means for pending and future cases:

Why the Right Defense Team Matters

Varghese Summersett has handled domestic violence and family violence cases across Texas for more than a decade. Letty Martinez, a Board Certified Criminal Law Specialist, spent more than 20 years as a prosecutor with the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office, including time as Chief of the Family Violence Unit and Chief of the Crimes Against Children Unit. She also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas and tried more than 100 cases before a jury. That background means she understands exactly how prosecutors build these cases and where they are vulnerable.

Founding partner Benson Varghese, also a Board Certified Criminal Law Specialist, has tried more than 100 cases across Texas courts. The firm’s criminal defense team has secured more than 1,600 dismissals and more than 800 charge reductions for clients across Texas. With four offices and a team of 70+ legal professionals, Varghese Summersett is equipped to meet the demands of these high-stakes cases.

When you retain Varghese Summersett for a domestic violence case, the work begins immediately. We review the police report, the 911 call, any body camera footage, and every piece of evidence the prosecution intends to use. We appear at all court settings so you do not have to miss work unnecessarily. We evaluate whether your case is eligible for a diversion program, whether constitutional issues exist that warrant a motion to suppress, and whether the evidence tested against the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard is sufficient for the state to proceed.

We also address the collateral consequences from day one. Your immigration status, professional licenses, firearms rights, and any pending family law matters are all part of the picture we consider when developing a defense strategy. These are not afterthoughts. They are part of the case.

Call for a Free Consultation
Send Us a Message

Award-Winning Legal Excellence

Ask Varghese Summersett AI

Versus-AI has been taught everything from our website and is here to help you find the answers you need. Ask Versus-AI anything.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a domestic violence charge be dropped if I reconcile with the alleged victim? +

No. Reconciliation between the parties does not en

Can You Claim Self-Defense in Texas If You Were Committing a Crime?

Varghese Summersett — Fri, 03 Apr 2026 06:34:08 Z

In Texas, being engaged in criminal activity does not automatically eliminate your right to claim self-defense. It costs you a legal presumption, not the defense itself. A landmark 2026 decision from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Cuevas v. State, made this distinction clear and reversed a murder conviction because prosecutors spent an entire trial telling the jury something that was not the law.

The attorneys at Varghese Summersett have handled some of the most serious violent crimes in Texas including murder charges where self-defense was the only defense available. Our team includes board-certified criminal defense attorneys, former prosecutors, and trial lawyers with decades of experience in Texas courts. We have secured more than 1,600 dismissals and 800+ charge reductions, including Not Guilty jury verdicts in murder cases. When the facts of your case depend on a nuanced legal theory like self-defense, the difference between a skilled advocate and an average one can be the difference between prison and freedom.

You've Seen Us On

What Did the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Decide in Cuevas v. State?

On April 2, 2026, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued its opinion in Cuevas v. State, No. PD-0144-25. The court reversed Victor Hugo Cuevas’s murder conviction and ordered a new trial. The reason? Prosecutors repeatedly told the jury from voir dire through closing argument that a person cannot claim self-defense if they were committing a crime at the time. The trial judge approved that position at every turn. The Court of Criminal Appeals said that was wrong, and that it caused real harm.

The facts were dramatic. Cuevas went to a parking lot in Fort Bend County to sell marijuana. According to his testimony and that of a witness, the buyer Ose pressed a gun to Cuevas’s head, robbed him of his marijuana and phone, and then threatened to kill him as he cocked his weapon. Cuevas fired seven shots into the car. Ose died. Cuevas was charged with murder and claimed self-defense. The jury convicted him anyway.

At sentencing, however, the same jury found that Cuevas acted under sudden passion a finding that requires believing the defendant’s version of events. The court saw this for what it was: a jury that believed Cuevas’s story but thought the law did not allow them to acquit him because he was dealing drugs. That misunderstanding cost Cuevas his self-defense claim.

What Is the Actual Law on Self-Defense in Texas?

Texas self-defense law under Tex. Penal Code § 9.32 has two distinct layers. Confusing them is a serious and surprisingly common mistake.

Layer One: The Right to Claim Self-Defense

Under § 9.32(a), a person is justified in using deadly force when they reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to protect themselves against another person’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force. The statute does not say anything about criminal activity stripping away this right. If you are facing a genuine threat of death or serious bodily injury, you may use deadly force to defend yourself even if you were doing something illegal at the time.

Layer Two: The Presumption of Reasonableness

Under § 9.32(b), there is a separate, additional benefit available to defendants in certain situations: a presumption that their belief in the necessity of deadly force was reasonable. To get this presumption, the defendant must not have been engaged in criminal activity at the time (other than a Class C misdemeanor traffic violation). They also must not have provoked the confrontation, and the threat must involve specific qualifying conduct by the other person.

This is where the prosecutor in Cuevas got it wrong repeatedly and prejudicially. Being involved in criminal activity does not eliminate the underlying self-defense right. It only removes the presumption. The defendant still gets to argue self-defense. They just have to prove it the hard way, without the legal head start that the presumption provides.

What Is the “Presumption of Reasonableness” and Why Does It Matter?

Think of the presumption as a head start in a race. Without it, both sides start at the same line and the jury weighs the evidence with no thumb on the scale. With the presumption, the defendant starts ahead the jury is instructed to assume the belief in deadly force was reasonable unless the State proves otherwise.

Losing the presumption does not mean losing the defense. It means the defendant has to convince the jury of reasonableness through evidence and argument rather than through a legal instruction that tells the jury to presume it. That is a harder path. But it is still a path.

The Court of Criminal Appeals emphasized this point in its analysis. An inapplicable but legally correct instruction that purports to benefit a defendant would generally not harm a defendant. The danger arises when prosecutors take that instruction and invert it telling the jury it means the defendant has no defense at all. That is exactly what happened in Cuevas.

When Should the Presumption Instruction Go to the Jury?

This is the procedural crux of the case. Texas law requires a trial court to instruct the jury on “the law applicable to the case.” A presumption instruction only qualifies as applicable law if the presumed fact is actually in dispute. Under Tex. Penal Code § 2.05(b)(1), the existence of a presumed fact must be submitted to the jury “unless the court is satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly precludes a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact.”

In Cuevas, it was undisputed admitted by the defendant himself on the stand that he was involved in criminal activity when the shooting occurred. The presumption was never triggered. Putting it in the jury charge anyway was error because it gave the prosecutor a loaded weapon: a legitimate-looking instruction that she spent the entire trial misrepresenting to the jury.

How Did the Court Analyze the Harm?

Because the error was objected to at trial, the Court of Criminal Appeals applied the Almanza standard: the conviction is reversed if the defendant suffered “some harm” meaning actual harm, not merely theoretical harm. The court evaluated four factors.

The Jury Charge

The abstract portion of the charge correctly stated the presumption language. The application paragraph did not explicitly reference it. Normally that would weigh against harm, since the application paragraph is the “heart and soul” of the jury charge. But the application paragraph used the phrase “reasonably believing,” which the court found logically linked to the abstract presumption instruction incorporating it by reference. This factor weighed only slightly in the State’s favor.

Other Relevant Record Information

The State previewed its misstatement of the law during voir dire with slide presentations telling the jury that deadly force is reasonable only if the defendant “was NOT engaged in criminal activity.” The trial judge overruled every defense objection and sustained the State’s objection when defense counsel tried to correct the record in his opening statement. The court noted that the trial judge “consistently put the stamp of judicial approval on the State’s misstatements of law.” This factor weighed heavily in favor of harm.

The Evidence

The court of appeals had found the evidence of guilt “overwhelming.” The Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed. The drug deal happened in a public parking lot in front of a restaurant, with witnesses all around. Cuevas left his cell phone and marijuana in Ose’s car evidence that the robbery was a surprise. A third-party witness, Jesse Richey, testified that two weeks before the shooting, Ose had told him he planned to rob someone named Victor and called him “an easy lick.” That testimony came from outside Cuevas’s circle entirely. This factor weighed at least moderately in favor of harm.

Arguments of Counsel

The State’s rebuttal argument doubled down on the misstatement: “He cannot use deadly force to protect against the imminent commission of aggravated robbery if he’s also committing another crime. You can’t do it.” Defense counsel objected. The judge overruled it. The rebuttal came last after the defense had already closed giving Cuevas no opportunity to respond. This factor weighed at least moderately in favor of harm.

Weighing all four factors together, the court found that Cuevas suffered at least some harm. The conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial.

What Was the Role of the Sudden Passion Finding?

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the opinion involves what happened at the punishment phase. After convicting Cuevas of murder, the same jury found that he acted under the influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause a finding under Tex. Penal Code § 19.02(d) that reduced the offense from a first-degree to a second-degree felony.

Both sides told the jury during punishment arguments that a sudden passion finding required believing Cuevas’s version of events. The State said so explicitly. The Court of Criminal Appeals drew a stark inference from this: the jury believed that Cuevas had been threatened with deadly force and reacted in the heat of the moment, but thought the law barred a self-defense acquittal because he was dealing drugs. The jury’s finding of sudden passion combined with its rejection of self-defense suggests it believed the defendant’s story but also believed the State’s interpretation of the presumption issue, and therefore thought its hands were tied.

That is not how self-defense law works in Texas. And that mistaken belief, reinforced by the prosecutor and endorsed by the trial court, is precisely what the Court of Criminal Appeals corrected.

What Does This Mean for Your Self-Defense Case?

If you or someone you love is facing an assault or murder charge and the facts involve an element of self-defense, the legal nuances matter enormously. A few key takeaways from Cuevas:

Being engaged in illegal activity does not eliminate a self-defense claim. You lose the presumption of reasonableness, but you retain the right to argue that your belief in the need for deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. That argument can still win it is just harder to make without the legal presumption.

Prosecutors sometimes misstate this law. The misstatement in Cuevas was not subtle. It was repeated from voir dire through closing arguments, in slide presentations, in hypotheticals, and in rebuttal all while the trial judge approved it. Defense counsel must be vigilant about objecting to these misstatements and protecting the record.

The jury charge matters. Improper instructions even those that look facially correct can be weaponized by prosecutors to mislead juries. Experienced criminal defense lawyers fight hard during the charge conference, precisely because what goes into the charge shapes what arguments can be made to the jury.

If you are facing a serious violent crime charge in Texas where self-defense is at issue, do not try to navigate this alone. Speak with a Texas homicide defense attorney who understands how courts analyze self-defense claims and how to protect your rights at every stage of trial. Schedule a free consultation with Varghese Summersett today.

A Real Example: Varghese Summersett’s Track Record in Serious Violent Cases

The legal principles in Cuevas are not abstract. They play out in courtrooms across Texas every week. Varghese Summersett has secured Not Guilty verdicts at jury trial in murder cases including a 2016 acquittal in a case tried to verdict. Results like these require more than knowing the law. They require attorneys who can identify the theory, construct the argument, protect the charge, and deliver it in front of a jury under pressure. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

What to Expect From Varghese Summersett

When your life and freedom are on the line, you deserve attorneys who have been here before. At Varghese Summersett, we handle serious violent crime charges including murder, manslaughter, and aggravated assault across Texas. Here is what you can expect from our team:

Experienced trial attorneys. Our lawyers have tried serious felonies to verdict, including murder cases. We know how to build and preserve a self-defense record from day one including voir dire, the charge conference, and closing arguments.

Board-certified criminal defense. The firm has three attorneys board-certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization a distinction held by fewer than one percent of Texas lawyers. Board certification means demonstrated expertise, peer review, and ongoing testing in your specific area of law.

A team approach. With 70+ legal professionals across Fort Worth, Dallas, Southlake, and Houston, we have the depth to handle complex, high-stakes cases without cutting corners.

Relentless advocacy. From the moment you call, our attorneys are working on your case. We fight pretrial motions, charge conferences, and when necessary trial. Over 1,100 five-star reviews reflect a commitment to standing beside clients at every step.

Award-Winning Legal Excellence

Ask Varghese Summersett AI

Versus-AI has been taught everything from our website and is here to help you find the answers you need. Ask Versus-AI anything.

Watch: Self-Defense and Deadly Force in Texas

Frequently Asked Questions: Self-Defense and Criminal Activity in Texas

Can you claim self-defense in Texas if you were committing a crime?

Yes. Texas law does not bar a self-defense claim simply because the defendant was engaged in criminal activity at the time. What criminal activity does is eliminate the presumption of reasonableness under Tex. Penal Code § 9.32(b). The defendant must still prove reasonable belief in the necessity of deadly force through evidence and argument but the right to raise self-defense remains intact. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals confirmed this in Cuevas v. State (2026).

What is the “presumption of reasonableness” in Texas self-defense law?

Under § 9.32(b) of the Texas Penal Code, a defendant’s belief that deadly force was immediately necessary is presumed to be reasonable if they were not engaged in criminal activity (other than a Class C traffic violation), did not provoke the confrontation, and the other person was committing certain qualifying acts. The presumption functions like a legal head start the jury is instructed to assume reasonableness unless the State disproves it. Defendants who were committing crimes at the time lose this presumption but do not lose the underlying defense.

What happened in Cuevas v. State?

In Cuevas v. State, No. PD-0144-25 (Tex. Crim. App. April 2, 2026), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed a Fort Bend County murder conviction because prosecutors repeatedly told the jury that the defendant could not claim self-defense since he was involved in a drug deal. That was a misstatement of the law. The actual law only cost him the presumption of reasonableness not the self-defense claim itself. The court found the error caused actual harm and ordered a new trial.

What is “sudden passion” in a Texas murder case?

Under Tex. Penal Code § 19.02(d), a defendant charged with murder may argue during the punishment phase that they acted under the influence of sudden passion arising from adequate cause. If the jury finds this by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is reduced from a first-degree felony to a second-degree felony carrying 2 to 20 years instead of 5 to 99 years. In Cuevas, the jury’s sudden passion finding at punishment after convicting at guilt-innocence strongly suggested the jury believed the defendant’s account of events but felt barred from acquitting due to his criminal activity.

What is the Almanza harm standard in Texas criminal appeals?

Under Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985), the standard for reversible jury charge error depends on whether the error was objected to at trial. If the error was objected to, the conviction is reversed if the defendant suffered “some harm.” If the error was not objected to, the higher standard of “egregious harm” applies. Courts evaluating harm look at the jury charge as a whole, arguments of counsel, the evidence, and any other relevant record information.

Texas Homicide Defense

Experienced homicide defense attorneys across Texas

Fort Worth

Dallas

Other Locations

Statewide Resources

Facing homicide charges in Texas? Get a free consultation.

(817) 203-2220

If self-defense is part of your case, every decision matters from the first phone call to the last word of closing argument. Contact Varghese Summersett for a free consultation with a Texas criminal defense attorney who knows how to fight for you.

Texas Supreme Court on Separate Property Tracing in Texas Divorce

Varghese Summersett — Sat, 21 Mar 2026 08:43:22 Z

What Does the Texas Supreme Court’s New Ruling Mean for Separate Property Tracing in Your Divorce?

If you brought assets into your marriage and want to keep them in your divorce, Texas law is on your side, but only if you can prove it. On March 20, 2026, the Texas Supreme Court issued its decision in Landry v. Landry, No. 24-0910, delivering a firm ruling about how courts must treat credible, unrebutted expert testimony in separate property disputes. The message is clear: when a qualified expert traces your assets and no one contradicts them, a trial court’s decision to believe that expert stands.

Why This Case Matters

Property disputes are among the most contested battlegrounds in any Texas divorce. What you owned before you married is your separate property. But proving that to a court, especially after years of shared finances, requires more than your word. It requires documentation, methodology, and often a forensic expert who can trace the money through years of account statements and explain what it all means.

Landry v. Landry is important because it reaffirms that when that expert work is done right, appellate courts cannot simply substitute their own judgment for the trial court’s. This matters enormously for anyone fighting to protect pre-marital investments, inheritances, or other assets from being swept into the community estate.

The attorneys at Varghese Summersett handle complex marital property division disputes across Texas. Our family law team includes J. Turner Thornton, recognized by Best Lawyers in America for Family Law (2024) and a licensed mediator, alongside Partner Dena Wilson, a Super Lawyer with over two decades of experience in high-asset divorces. When property characterization is on the line, preparation and expert coordination are everything.

You've Seen Us On

The Facts of Landry v. Landry

Theodore and Janelle Landry married in January 2003 and divorced after a two-day bench trial. The dispute centered on two Charles Schwab investment accounts that Theodore had opened before the marriage (one in 1992, one in 1995). He argued they were his separate property. Janelle argued they had become community property.

Theodore retained Bryan Rice, a certified public accountant, to trace the accounts. Rice analyzed monthly statements from January 2003 through June 2019, sixteen years of financial history. His conclusion: although the accounts earned interest and dividends during the marriage, community funds withdrew that income as fast as it came in, funding community expenses. The accounts never became commingled with community assets in a way that changed their character.

Rice acknowledged he had not reviewed four months of statements (July through October 2018). Those statements were actually in the court record the entire time; Rice simply had not received them. When pressed on both direct and cross-examination, Rice testified without hesitation that those four months would not have materially changed his conclusions. He had already established a consistent pattern across fifteen-plus years of data, and those four months represented roughly two percent of the total account history. Janelle’s own rebuttal expert was excluded by the trial court for being untimely designated. She offered no other evidence to counter Rice’s analysis.

The trial court credited Rice, admitted his testimony and supporting documents, and declared both investment accounts to be Theodore’s separate property.

What the Community Property Presumption Means: How to Overcome It

Under Texas Family Code § 3.003, all property held by either spouse during a marriage or at its dissolution is presumed to be community property. That presumption is real and it has teeth. A court cannot simply take your word for it that something is separate.

To overcome the presumption, the spouse claiming separate property must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the asset is separate. Clear and convincing is a heightened standard: more than a preponderance of the evidence, less than beyond a reasonable doubt. The party claiming separate property must trace and clearly identify the funds as separate throughout the marriage. Bare assertions or incomplete records typically fall short.

Texas law allows litigants to trace separate property through documentary evidence, including bank and investment account records. This is exactly what Rice did in the Landry case. The Texas Supreme Court confirmed that approach in In re J.Y.O., 709 S.W.3d 485, 499 (Tex. 2024): tracing through bank and business records is a recognized and accepted method.

When the tracing is thorough, the expert is qualified, and the other side offers nothing to rebut it, the trial court’s decision to accept that evidence is entitled to strong deference on appeal.

How the Dallas Court of Appeals Got It Wrong, Twice

The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, and the Texas Supreme Court reversed them back. Then it happened again. Understanding why the court of appeals kept getting it wrong is the most instructive part of this opinion.

The First Error: Misreading the Record

The first time the court of appeals reversed, it declared that the July through October 2018 account statements were missing from the record entirely. The Texas Supreme Court pointed out that those statements were in the record the entire time. The court of appeals had simply misread it. The Supreme Court reversed, told the court of appeals to look at the full record and do a proper sufficiency analysis, and remanded the case. Landry v. Landry, 687 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. 2024).

The Second Error: Substituting Its Judgment for the Trial Court’s

On remand, the court of appeals still did not follow instructions. Rather than analyzing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, it reasoned that it could not determine whether those four months of statements supported Rice’s assumptions, or whether the trial court would have found Rice less credible if they did not. On that basis, it reversed again.

The Supreme Court called this what it was: impermissible appellate second-guessing. Under Texas law, a trial court is the sole judge of witness credibility and the weight to give testimony. Appellate courts reviewing legal sufficiency must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding and ask whether a reasonable fact-finder could have formed a firm belief or conviction. They do not get to re-weigh evidence or speculate about what the trial court might have concluded under different circumstances.

Rice was qualified and accepted as an expert. His testimony was unrebutted. The trial court explicitly credited him. The four months he did not independently review were in the record and available to the trial court as fact-finder. None of that justified reversing the trial court’s judgment.

Why the Supreme Court Rendered Instead of Remanding Again

In most cases where an appellate court errs, the Texas Supreme Court sends the case back down for the right analysis to be done. Here, the Court went further. It exercised its authority under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 60.2(c) and its own precedent in Ammonite Oil & Gas Corp. v. R.R. Comm’n of Tex., 698 S.W.3d 198, 208 n.35 (Tex. 2024), to declare itself “the final stop for this litigation.” Rather than remanding to the court of appeals a third time, the Supreme Court directly reinstated the trial court’s judgment for Theodore.

This is notable. The Supreme Court does not often render judgment in cases like this. The decision to do so here reflects the Court’s frustration with a court of appeals that had now failed twice to follow its instructions. For litigants and practitioners, it also signals that when the evidentiary record is clear and the only remaining question is whether appellate second-guessing is permissible, the Supreme Court is willing to end the litigation rather than prolong it.

What This Ruling Means for Your Property Division Case

If you are heading into a Texas divorce with separate property to protect, Landry v. Landry carries practical lessons that should shape your strategy from day one.

A Qualified Expert Is Not Optional

The community property presumption under Texas Family Code § 3.003 is not a formality. It is the default rule, and it takes clear and convincing evidence to overcome it. What this case makes unmistakably clear is that documentary records alone are rarely enough. You need a qualified expert, typically a forensic accountant or CPA, who can take those records, apply a recognized tracing methodology, and explain the conclusions to a judge in terms that will hold up to scrutiny. Rice did exactly that. He reviewed sixteen years of monthly statements, identified the pattern of income flowing out as fast as it came in, and explained why the accounts retained their separate character throughout the marriage. Without that expert analysis, the account statements would have been just paper. With it, they became the foundation of a judgment that survived two trips to the Texas Supreme Court.

If you are trying to protect pre-marital investments, inheritance funds, or other separate assets in a divorce, retaining the right expert early is one of the most important decisions you will make in the case.

Your Expert Needs to Testify to the Strength of Their Own Conclusions

Hiring a forensic accountant is not enough by itself. Rice’s analysis survived partly because of how he testified. When cross-examined about the four months of statements he had not reviewed, he did not equivocate. He explained why that gap did not matter, pointed to the fifteen-plus year pattern he had already established, and told the court he was confident in his conclusions. That kind of testimony gives a trial court exactly what it needs to make findings that will withstand appellate review. An expert who hedges, qualifies excessively, or cannot explain gaps in the record hands the other side an opening. Make sure your expert is prepared not just to present conclusions, but to defend them.

If You Are on the Other Side, Failing to Designate a Counter-Expert on Time Can Be Fatal

This may be the sharpest lesson in the entire opinion. Janelle retained her own expert, Larry Settles, to rebut Rice’s analysis. The trial court excluded Settles as untimely designated. The court of appeals affirmed that exclusion. Janelle never challenged the exclusion before the Texas Supreme Court. The result: the trial court had one qualified expert before it on the question of separate property characterization, and it was Theodore’s. There was nothing left to weigh.

When the opposing party offers expert testimony on property tracing, you cannot simply hope the testimony is flawed. You need your own expert, designated on time, prepared to address the opposing analysis head-on. Missing a designation deadline does not just put you at a disadvantage. As this case shows, it can leave you with no viable path to challenge the other side’s evidence at all. Once the door closes on your expert, it does not reopen.

Appellate Courts Have Limits: Know How to Leverage Them

The opinion is a crisp restatement of the rules governing legal sufficiency review. When an appellate court tries to re-weigh evidence or speculate about what the trial court might have thought, Landry is now a useful citation to push back. Appellate courts reviewing the sufficiency of clear-and-convincing evidence must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding. They cannot substitute their credibility judgments for the fact-finder’s. See also our discussion at appealing property division in Texas for more on how these standards work in practice.

Document Early and Thoroughly

Theodore was able to trace his investment accounts partly because sixteen years of monthly statements existed and most of them made it to the expert. If you have pre-marital assets, start building your documentation now, not when you are served with divorce papers. Account statements, records showing the source of funds, and evidence of how community income was handled relative to those accounts all become critical later. See our overview of asset division in Texas divorce and how commingling of funds can affect the character of your property.

What to Expect From Varghese Summersett

Property characterization disputes require attorneys who understand both the legal framework and the forensic work that supports it. At Varghese Summersett, our family law team has handled high-asset divorces involving investment portfolios, business interests, retirement accounts, and real estate across Texas. We know how to build the evidentiary record that protects your assets at trial and holds up on appeal.

J. Turner Thornton leads our Family Law Division. He is a licensed mediator recognized by Best Lawyers in America for Family Law (2024) and has guided hundreds of clients through complex property division matters. Partner Dena Wilson brings more than 20 years of family law experience and has been recognized as a Super Lawyer since 2012. Senior Associate Kristen Carr, also recognized by Best Lawyers in America (2024, 2025), has handled hundreds of family law matters and is herself a licensed mediator.

When your financial future is on the line, preparation and expert coordination matter from the very first step. Reach out to speak with one of our attorneys about your case.

Call (817) 203-2220
Send Us a Message

Award-Winning Legal Excellence

Ask Varghese Summersett AI

Versus-AI has been taught everything from our website and is here to help you find the answers you need. Ask Versus-AI anything.

Frequently Asked Questions About Separate Property Tracing in Texas

What is separate property in a Texas divorce? +

Separate property is property you owned before marriage, received as a gift, or inherited at any point. Under Texas Family Code § 3.001, it belongs to you alone and is not subject to division in a divorce. The challenge is proving it qualifies as separate when community property is the default assumption under Texas law.

What does “tracing” mean in a divorce case? +

Tracing is the process of documenting how separate property funds moved through accounts during the marriage. A forensic accountant or CPA reviews bank and investment records to show that the funds maintained their separate character, meaning they were not commingled with community money in a way that changed what they are. Effective tracing requires detailed records and a credible expert who can explain the methodology.

What happens if my separate property gets mixed with community money? +

Commingling (mixing separate and community funds) can make tracing difficult or impossible. If you cannot clearly identify and trace the separate property, it may be characterized as community property. That is why keeping separate accounts, maintaining records, and avoiding deposits of community income into pre-marital accounts matters throughout the marriage. Learn more at our page on commingling of funds in marriage.

What standard of proof applies to separate property claims in Texas? +

You must prove separate property by clear and convincing evidence under Texas Family Code § 3.003(b). This is a higher bar than the preponderance standard used in most civil cases. It means the evidence must produce a firm belief or conviction that the property is separate. Expert testimony grounded in thorough documentary analysis is typically the most effective way to meet this standard.

Can a trial court’s property ruling be overturned on appeal? +

Yes, but it is difficult. Appellate courts review property division decisions for abuse of discretion. A trial court abuses its discretion only if it makes a decision without legally sufficient evidence to support it. As Landry v. Landry makes clear, appellate courts cannot re-weigh evidence, second-guess credibility determinations, or speculate about what the trial court might have concluded. Strong evidentiary records are the best protection against reversal going either way. See our overview of appealing property division in Texas for more.

Texas Family Law Practice Areas

Comprehensive family law services across Texas

Main Pages

Divorce

Child Custody

Child Support

Property & Finances

Other Services

Need family law help in Texas? Get a free consultation.

(817) 203-2220

Property division disputes in Texas divorce cases require careful preparation, the right experts, and attorneys who understand how appellate courts review these issues. If you have pre-marital assets to protect or questions about how your property will be characterized, speak with the family law team at Varghese Summersett. Call (817) 203-2220 or reach out through our website to schedule a consultation.

Texas Motion for Summary Judgment Rule Changes (Rule 166a) 2026

Varghese Summersett — Mon, 16 Mar 2026 13:43:36 Z

Motions for Summary Judgment filed in Texas on or after March 1, 2026 are subject to new rules and deadlines that apply to the movant, nonmovant, and the court. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a has been completely rewritten, and the procedural habits (and tactics) that governed summary judgment practice for decades are no longer operative.

This article is a practitioner’s guide to the new rule. It covers what changed, why it changed, how the new deadline structure works in practice, and what plaintiff’s counsel, defense counsel, and courts need to do differently starting now.

Rule 166a Effective March 1, 2026

What you need to know about Texas’s rewritten summary judgment rule

Deadlines now run from the date the motion is filed not the hearing date
Nonmovant has 21 days to respond after the motion is filed
Movant has 7 days after the response is filed to reply
Courts must set a hearing or submission within 60 days of filing (90 with good cause)
Courts must issue a written ruling within 90 days of the hearing or submission date
Both parties must submit proposed orders before the hearing
Reply briefs cannot raise new grounds expressly prohibited by rule
Motion withdrawals must be formally filed and identify the original filing date
Non-compliance is reported quarterly to the OCA and annually to the Governor
The substantive legal standard for granting or denying summary judgment has not changed

Use the free Texas MSJ Deadline Calculator to instantly compute your deadlines.
Calculate your deadlines

Texas Rule 166a: What Changed on March 1, 2026

The Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 293 and House Bill 16 during the 89th Legislative Session, mandating a top-to-bottom revision of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a. SB 293 required strict scheduling for hearings and rulings to end the era of motions languishing on trial court dockets. HB 16 modified those judicial action timelines, extending certain deadlines from 45 to 60 days and allowing the 90-day window under limited circumstances. The Texas Supreme Court finalized the amendments and signed them on February 27, 2026 (Misc. Docket No. 26-9012). The changes took effect March 1, 2026, and apply to every motion for summary judgment filed on or after that date.

The goals were speed, consistency, and accountability. For years, summary judgment motions in Texas state courts could linger indefinitely. A motion could sit on a docket for months with no hearing set, no ruling issued, and no mechanism to force a resolution. The amended rule changes all of that by imposing mandatory deadlines on both parties and the court itself.

The court’s comment accompanying the 2026 revision makes clear that the rewrite is procedural, not substantive. The underlying legal standards for granting or denying summary judgment have not changed. What has changed is everything about how those motions move through the system.

TRCP Rule 166a (2026)

Old Rule vs. New Rule: Side-by-Side Comparison

Here is how the key provisions changed under the 2026 rewrite. The substantive legal standards for granting or denying summary judgment are unchanged; everything below is procedural.

Procedural Issue	Old Rule	New Rule (Effective March 1, 2026)
Response deadline	7 days before the hearing	21 days after the motion is filed
Reply deadline	Not explicitly set by rule	7 days after the response is filed
Deadline clock runs from	Hearing date (floating)	Date of filing (fixed)
Court required to set hearing	No mandatory deadline	Within 60 days of filing (90 days with good cause or movant’s agreement); no earlier than 35 days after filing
Court required to rule	No mandatory deadline	Written ruling within 90 days of hearing or submission date
Motion title	No specific titling requirement	Must be titled “Traditional,” “No-Evidence,” or “Combined Motion for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment”
Oral argument request	Could appear anywhere in the filing	Must appear in the title of the motion or response
Proposed orders	Not required by rule	Both parties must submit proposed orders before the hearing or submission date
Reply limitations	New grounds in reply addressed by case law only	Expressly prohibited by rule; reply may not raise new or independent summary judgment grounds
Motion withdrawals	No formal requirement	Must be formally filed and must identify the original filing date of the motion
Compliance reporting	None	Clerks report quarterly to the Office of Court Administration; OCA publishes annual public report
Legal standards for granting/denying	No genuine issue of material fact; movant entitled to judgment as matter of law	Unchanged

You've Seen Us On

Traditional vs. No-Evidence: The Two Types of Texas Summary Judgment Motions

The amended rule formally defines each motion type, clarifying both the burden of proof and when each can be filed:

A traditional motion for summary judgment argues that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The movant carries the burden of establishing this through evidence attached to the motion. A traditional motion may be filed at any time after the non-moving party has appeared or answered in the case.

A no-evidence motion for summary judgment argues that the opposing party has no evidence to support one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which that party would bear the burden of proof at trial. Here the burden shifts: the movant identifies the elements it is challenging, and the non-movant must produce some evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on those specific elements. A no-evidence motion may only be filed after an adequate time for discovery. Filing one prematurely gives the non-movant a clear path to defeat it under Rule 166a(d)(3).

A party may also file a combined motion raising both traditional and no-evidence grounds. This is common when the movant believes it can win on either theory, and the rule expressly permits combining both into a single filing.

Mandatory Titling Requirements Under Amended TRCP 166a

One of the most practical changes under the revised rule is a mandatory titling requirement. Every summary judgment motion must now be titled as one of the following:

“Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment”
“No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment”
“Combined Motion for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment”

An incorrect or absent title is not grounds to deny the motion outright. However, a court may return the motion for correction, which could restart or delay the procedural timeline. Getting the title right from the start avoids that friction entirely.

If a party wants an oral hearing on the motion, that request must now appear in the title of the motion or response itself, not buried in the body of a filing.

Backward-Looking vs. Forward-Looking Deadlines

The single biggest structural shift in the 2026 rewrite is the direction deadlines run. Under the old rule, every briefing deadline looked backward from the hearing. Under the new rule, every deadline looks forward from the filing date. That one change has cascading effects on how litigants must manage their calendars.

Under the old system, the hearing date was the anchor. A non-movant’s response was due seven days before the hearing. That meant the response deadline was only knowable once a hearing was scheduled, and if no hearing was ever set, there was effectively no deadline at all. A party could file a motion and then let it sit without setting a hearing, leaving the opposing party in a state of procedural limbo. The system rewarded delay and created asymmetric pressure on non-movants who had to track floating dates tied to an event that might never occur.

The new system flips that entirely. The filing date is now the anchor for everything. The non-movant’s response is due 21 days after filing. The movant’s reply is due 7 days after the response. The court must set a hearing or submission within 60 days of filing. The court must issue a written ruling within 90 days of the hearing or submission. None of these deadlines depend on anything happening in the future. The moment a motion is filed, every participant in the case, including the judge, is on a defined timeline.

In practical terms, this means the old habit of filing a motion and waiting to see what happens is gone. Forward-looking deadlines demand that all parties treat the filing date as the starting gun, not a placeholder. If you are on the receiving end of a summary judgment motion, your preparation window is fixed and finite from day one.

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a Deadline Timeline: Litigants and Courts

Deadlines for Litigants

Every party deadline under the new rule runs from the filing date of the motion. There is no ambiguity about when the clock starts.

Day 0: Motion for summary judgment filed. All clocks start.
Day 21: Non-movant’s response due (or by agreement/leave of court).
Day 21 + 7: Movant’s reply due within 7 days of the date the response is actually filed, not 7 days from the response deadline. If the non-movant files on Day 15, the reply is due Day 22. If the non-movant files on Day 21, the reply is due Day 28.
Before hearing: Both parties must submit proposed orders.

Deadlines for the Court

The court operates under its own set of mandatory deadlines, also anchored to the filing date.

No earlier than Day 35: The earliest date the court may set a hearing or submission.
By Day 60: The court must have a hearing or submission date set. This extends to Day 90 only if the court’s docket requires it, on a showing of good cause, or if the movant agrees.
Within 90 days of hearing: The court must sign a written ruling, file it with the clerk, and provide it to the parties.

Maximum Time From Filing to Ruling

Add it up and the outer limits become clear. Under the standard setting window, the court has up to 60 days to set the hearing and then 90 days after that to rule. That puts the absolute maximum at 150 days from filing to written decision, roughly five months. If the court is granted the 90-day extended setting window, the outer limit stretches to 180 days, but only if the court also takes the full 90 days post-hearing to rule. In practice, most cases should resolve well within 150 days.

Under the old rule, there was no outer limit at all. A motion could theoretically sit unresolved for years. The 2026 amendments cap that exposure and give every litigant a reliable window for when a ruling must arrive.

How the New Briefing Deadlines Work Under Amended TRCP 166a

Under the old rule, briefing deadlines were tied to the hearing date. A response was due seven days before the hearing. This created a system where deadlines floated depending on when a court got around to scheduling things. The new rule eliminates that ambiguity entirely. Every deadline now runs from the date the motion is filed.

Response Deadline: 21 Days From Filing

Once a summary judgment motion is filed, the non-moving party has 21 days to file a response. That clock starts ticking the day the motion hits the court’s file, regardless of whether a hearing has been set or even scheduled. Parties can modify this deadline by agreement or leave of court, but the default is firm.

This is a significant shift. Under the prior rule, a non-movant could sometimes rely on a distant hearing date as informal notice of how much preparation time was available. That buffer is gone. The moment you are served with a summary judgment motion, your 21-day clock has started.

Reply Deadline: 7 Days After the Response

After the non-movant files a response, the moving party may file a reply. That reply must be filed within 7 days of the response, unless the parties agree otherwise or the court grants leave.

The rule also now expressly codifies what Texas courts had already recognized in case law: a reply cannot raise new or independent summary judgment grounds. A reply is for addressing the response, not for expanding the motion. There is one narrow exception: a reply may address a new or amended pleading filed after the motion if a ground already asserted in the motion negates an element common to a claim in that new pleading.

Mandatory Court Deadlines Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a

This is where the 2026 amendments represent the most significant departure from prior practice. For the first time, Texas Rule 166a imposes mandatory deadlines on trial courts for setting hearings and issuing written rulings. The rule carves the court’s action window into three distinct zones, each with its own significance.

The Dead Zone: Days 1 Through 35

From the moment a summary judgment motion is filed through the first 35 days, the court cannot set a hearing or submission date. This is a hard floor. No matter how light a court’s docket is, no matter how eager the parties are to move quickly, the rule prohibits any setting during this window.

The dead zone exists for good reason. It gives the non-movant time to file a response before a hearing date is even on the calendar. Under the new rule, the non-movant has 21 days to respond, and the movant then has 7 days from the actual response filing to reply. Locking out any hearing setting for 35 days ensures the briefing cycle has a realistic chance to complete before a date is locked in. Courts and parties should treat this window as preparation time, not idle time.

The Standard Action Window: Days 35 Through 60

Between Day 35 and Day 60 from the filing date is where the court must act. The hearing or submission date must be set somewhere inside this 25-day window under normal circumstances. The clerk is required to immediately bring the motion to the court’s attention upon filing, and the court should be tracking the Day 60 deadline from that point forward.

For litigants, this window matters because it defines when to expect a hearing date to appear on the calendar. If Day 60 approaches with no setting, the court is at risk of missing a mandatory deadline that will show up in quarterly OCA compliance reporting. Practitioners who want an oral argument rather than submission on briefs should have their hearing request in the title of their filing well before this window closes.

The Exception Window: Days 60 Through 90

The rule allows the court to extend the setting deadline out to 90 days from filing, but only in three specific circumstances. The court’s docket must require it, there must be a showing of good cause, or the movant must agree. This is not a default extension. It requires one of those conditions to be satisfied, and courts should document the basis in the record, both for OCA reporting purposes and to protect the setting from a challenge.

The 90-day exception window is not available simply because a case is complex or the parties are still in active discovery. Those concerns are better addressed through a motion to extend the response deadline under Rule 166a(d)(3) or through the initial docket control order. Absent one of the three enumerated bases, the court should have the matter set by Day 60.

Texas MSJ Deadline Calculator TRCP Rule 166a (eff. March 1, 2026).
This tool is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Made possible by Lawft.
Open full calculator.

Written Ruling Within 90 Days of the Hearing or Submission

Once the hearing or submission date passes, the court has 90 days to sign a written ruling, file it with the clerk, and provide the ruling to the parties. A court cannot simply take the matter under advisement indefinitely. The full lifecycle from filing to ruling is now expected to run approximately five to six months depending on which setting window the court uses.

Evidence Rules, Withdrawals, and Other Requirements Under Amended Rule 166a

Several additional procedural requirements apply alongside the deadline changes:

Proposed orders: Both the moving party and the non-moving party are now required to submit a proposed order before the hearing or submission date. This is no longer optional.

No oral testimony: The rule explicitly confirms that no oral testimony may be received at a summary judgment hearing. Evidence comes in through the methods specified in the rule: deposition transcripts, interrogatory answers, admissions, affidavits, declarations, stipulations, and other authenticated materials.

Late-filed evidence: The court retains discretion to consider evidence filed late, but it must affirmatively indicate that consideration in the official record. This requirement removes ambiguity for appellate review. Under the prior practice, it was sometimes unclear whether a court had actually weighed late-filed materials. The new rule requires the court to say so explicitly, giving both parties a clear record on appeal.

Withdrawals: Informally notifying the court coordinator by email is no longer sufficient. Any withdrawal of a summary judgment motion must be formally filed on the docket and must explicitly identify the original filing date of the motion. That date is what starts the court’s compliance clock under the new reporting requirements. A withdrawal that fails to identify the original filing date leaves the record ambiguous and may not properly stop the clock for OCA tracking purposes.

Discovery not on file: If a party wants to use discovery materials not already in the court’s file as summary judgment evidence, copies or notices with specific references must be filed at the time the motion is filed (for movant’s evidence) or at the time the response is filed (for the non-movant’s evidence).

How to Invoke Rule 166a(d)(3) When Evidence Is Unavailable

The amended rule addresses a recurring scenario: the non-movant needs more time for discovery before it can adequately respond. Under Rule 166a(d)(3), the non-movant may file an affidavit or declaration specifying the reasons why it cannot currently present facts essential to its opposition. Based on that showing, the court has three options: extend the response deadline, deny the motion without prejudice to allow additional discovery, or issue another appropriate order.

The lesson here is that silence is not a strategy. If you need more time, you must formally say so and explain why, in an affidavit or declaration.

How Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a Enforces Compliance

The new deadlines are not aspirational. They are backed by a four-level administrative oversight mechanism designed to make non-compliance a matter of public record.

At the first level, court clerks must report compliance with summary judgment hearing and ruling deadlines to the Office of Court Administration every quarter. At the second level, the OCA compiles that quarterly data into an annual compliance report. At the third level, district court judges must submit semi-annual sworn statements disclosing hours spent on judicial duties, including reviewing filings and drafting opinions, pursuant to the Rules of Judicial Administration. At the fourth and most consequential level, the OCA submits the final annual report to the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and the Speaker of the House by December 31 each year, making any pattern of non-compliance publicly visible at the highest levels of state government.

This four-level chain is new to Texas civil procedure. A judge who routinely misses ruling deadlines will not just face internal docket pressure. The pattern will appear in a report that goes to the Governor’s office and the Legislature.

TRCP 166a Practice Tips for Plaintiff’s Counsel

The new rule changes the rhythm of discovery and motion practice in ways that benefit plaintiffs in some respects and create new pressure in others.

Watch the 21-day clock from the moment the motion is filed +

Under the old rule, response deadlines tied to hearing dates gave plaintiffs some informal advance notice. That buffer is gone. The 21-day response window begins on the filing date, whether or not a hearing has been scheduled and whether or not you have received the motion through any informal channel. Set up court filing alerts for every active case. The moment a defendant files a summary judgment motion, your clock is running.

Move immediately if you need more discovery time +

If essential discovery is not yet complete, do not wait and do not simply ask for an extension in an email or a phone call. Under Rule 166a(d)(3), you must file an affidavit or declaration explaining specifically what facts you need, why they are unavailable, and what discovery would produce them. Vague assertions that discovery is ongoing are not sufficient. Courts have discretion here, but they are more likely to grant relief when the showing is concrete.

Take advantage of the hearing timeline to prepare fully +

Because hearings must now be set within 60 to 90 days of the motion’s filing and cannot be set within the first 35 days, plaintiff’s counsel now has a predictable window. Use it. File your response, submit your proposed order, and if you want oral argument, put that request in the title of your response. Do not assume the court will automatically set an oral hearing; request it explicitly.

Consider Dallas County’s 90-day pre-trial rule when scheduling +

In Dallas County, twelve of the thirteen Civil District Judges issued a general order requiring that summary judgment motions be filed at least 90 days before trial. A motion filed within that 90-day window will be automatically denied absent leave of court. If you are a plaintiff and a dispositive motion comes in late in the case, this local rule may work in your favor. If you are moving for summary judgment yourself, file well in advance of any trial setting.

Build summary judgment timelines into every scheduling order +

At the outset of litigation, work with opposing counsel to include specific summary judgment deadlines in the docket control order. Stipulating that motions cannot be filed until after the close of discovery avoids the awkward situation where a defendant files a no-evidence motion early, triggering the 21-day response clock before plaintiffs have had a realistic opportunity to develop their case.

TRCP 166a Practice Tips for Defense Counsel

The amendments create strategic opportunities and obligations for defense attorneys that require a shift in how summary judgment practice is approached.

Title the motion correctly before anything else +

This sounds basic, but it is the first thing that can go wrong. The motion must be titled “Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment,” “No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment,” or “Combined Motion for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment.” A missing or incorrect title is not an automatic loss, but the court may return the filing for correction, which could reset the procedural timeline at a point when delay is costly. If you want oral argument, that request goes in the title of the motion itself.

Do not use summary judgment as a negotiation placeholder +

Under the old rules, some practitioners filed motions before mediation as a negotiation tool or leverage play, knowing the motion might not be heard for months. That tactic is dead. Once you file, the court will set a hearing whether you want one or not. If a case is heading to mediation, consider using a Rule 166(g) pretrial conference instead to narrow the issues before that process. A pretrial conference can surface the same legal questions without starting the 150-day summary judgment clock, giving parties more control over timing and more flexibility to settle.

Draft briefs that stand entirely on their own without oral argument +

Courts under pressure to meet 90-day ruling deadlines will push more motions to written submission rather than scheduling oral argument. Do not assume you will get a hearing. Draft every summary judgment brief as if the judge will read it cold, without any opportunity to ask clarifying questions from the bench. Your argument structure, the organization of your evidence, and the clarity of your proposed order all need to be self-contained. If oral argument does happen, treat it as a bonus. If it does not, your brief should already be doing all the work.

Prepare your proposed order before the hearing, not after +

The amended rule requires both parties to submit proposed orders before the hearing or submission date. Draft your proposed order early and make sure it clearly tracks the grounds stated in the motion. A well-crafted proposed order gives the court a ready-made vehicle for ruling in your favor and reduces the risk of a ruling that does not fully capture what you argued.

Lock in summary judgment timelines early in discovery +

The new rule’s mandatory deadlines mean that a summary judgment motion filed at the wrong time can create chaos. If you file a no-evidence motion before adequate discovery has been completed, the non-movant has a clear path to seek an extension or denial without prejudice under Rule 166a(d)(3). Coordinate with discovery schedules so that no-evidence motions are filed after the factual record has been developed. Use the initial scheduling conference to get those timelines locked in.

Know what your reply can and cannot do +

The rule now explicitly prohibits raising new or independent summary judgment grounds in a reply. If you try to introduce a new legal theory or a new element in the reply brief, the court should disregard it, and opposing counsel will have a clear objection. Use the reply for what it is intended: addressing the specific arguments made in the response, pointing out evidentiary deficiencies in the non-movant’s showing, and reinforcing the grounds already stated in the motion.

TRCP 166a Compliance Checklist for Texas Trial Courts

The 2026 amendments place new obligations on trial courts that have no real precedent in Texas civil procedure. Courts that adapt quickly will be better positioned to comply with the rule and avoid OCA scrutiny.

Designate a clerk protocol for immediate motion tracking +

The amended rule requires the clerk to “immediately” call any filed summary judgment motion to the court’s attention. Courts should implement a standing protocol for flagging these filings the same day they are received, logging the filing date, and automatically calculating the 35-day earliest setting date, the 60-day (or 90-day) setting deadline, and the 90-day ruling deadline from the anticipated hearing or submission date. Without a systematic approach, compliance becomes dependent on memory and manual tracking, which creates risk.

Consider submission over oral argument to meet setting deadlines +

On a busy docket, finding an oral argument slot within 60 days of every summary judgment filing may be impossible. The rule expressly allows courts to set a matter for submission on written briefs rather than a live hearing. Courts that use submission more liberally will have an easier time meeting the mandatory setting deadlines. Note, however, that the rule requires the court to record in the docket the date the motion was heard or submitted, ensuring that the 90-day ruling clock is clearly documented.

Track the 90-day ruling window carefully +

The most consequential new obligation for courts is the requirement to issue a written ruling within 90 days of the hearing or submission date. That ruling must be signed, filed with the clerk, and provided to the parties. Courts should build in internal benchmarks well before the 90-day deadline. A motion taken under advisement and then forgotten presents a c

Unsolicited Calls from Personal Injury Lawyer After an Accident or Loss

Varghese Summersett — Sun, 01 Mar 2026 14:01:16 Z

If a stranger contacted you about your accident before you ever called a lawyer, that contact may be illegal. In Texas, hiring a law firm through an unsolicited case runner is called barratry, a criminal offense under Texas Penal Code § 38.12, and any contract you signed as a result is voidable at your option under Texas Government Code § 82.0651(c).

You have the right to walk away, hire new counsel, and Texas law is on your side.

Varghese Summersett is a Texas law firm with offices in Fort Worth, Dallas, Southlake, and Houston. Our personal injury attorneys came to every client the right way: through reputation, referrals, and results. We never use case runners. We represent injured Texans and grieving families who want a firm that earns their trust, not one that purchased their file. If you were solicited by a case runner and want to know your options, call us for a free consultation.

You've Seen Us On

How Illegal Case Runners Operate in Texas

You didn’t even make it home from the hospital before it started.

Twenty calls in a week. Maybe more. Texts from numbers you didn’t recognize. Someone showing up asking about your injuries. All of them strangers claiming they heard about your accident or your loved one’s death, all of them eager to connect you with a lawyer who could help. Some sounded friendly. Some sounded official. A few may have even known details you didn’t expect a stranger to know.

You’re not imagining things. You’re not being paranoid. What you experienced has a name, and in Texas, it is a crime.

What Is a Case Runner, and Why Should You Care?

Texas law calls them case runners. You might know them by other names: ambulance chasers, bird dogs, runners, or just the person who somehow found your number hours after your wreck or hours after your family member passed away.

A case runner is someone paid by a law firm to find victims and grieving families and bring them in as clients. They haunt emergency rooms and hospitals. They monitor police scanners. They buy accident reports and death records. They pay tow truck drivers, hospital employees, and first responders for tips. Then they call you, text you, show up at your door, or track you down on social media. All of it happens on someone else’s payroll, and all of it is designed to funnel you toward a specific law firm that is paying for the referral.

This practice is called barratry. Under Texas Penal Code § 38.12, it is a criminal offense not a gray area, not a technical violation. A crime, for the case runner and for the attorney who hired them.

It happens in personal injury cases after car accidents, truck accidents, and workplace injuries. It happens in wrongful death cases when a family is still in the hospital or still making funeral arrangements. The type of case doesn’t matter. What matters is that someone was paid to find you before you ever had a chance to think clearly about who you wanted to represent you.

Does the Law Firm That Cheats to Get Your Case Play by the Rules When It’s Time to Pay You?

Here is the question you need to sit with: if a law firm is willing to break the law to get your case, what makes you think they will play by the rules when it is time to pay you?

Think about what barratry tells you about a firm’s culture. It tells you they don’t believe they can earn clients the honest way, through reputation, results, and word of mouth. It tells you they’ve decided the rules don’t apply to them when it is inconvenient. And it tells you something important about their economics: they are paying, often handsomely, for every single client who walks through the door. That wheel has to keep spinning, which means they need volume, which means they need to move cases fast, cheap, and constantly.

That is not a recipe for the careful, patient, aggressive representation you deserve after a serious accident or the loss of a family member.

A firm running on case runners is a firm running on pressure. Pressure to settle quickly. Pressure to take whatever the insurance company offers rather than fight for what you are actually owed. Pressure to spend as little time on your case as possible so they can chase the next one. You are not a client to them. You are inventory.

And when the settlement check finally arrives, after they have taken their cut, covered their case runner fees, and moved on to the next referral, you may find yourself wondering why the number seems so much smaller than you expected. In a wrongful death case, where no amount of money replaces what was lost, settling for less than full value because a firm was too busy feeding its pipeline is a particular kind of betrayal.

If you have concerns about how your case is being handled, our article on how and when to fire your personal injury attorney walks through the process step by step.

Texas Law Gives You a Way Out and You Should Use It

Here is what most people who have been victimized by this system don’t know: you can fire that attorney, and Texas law specifically protects your right to do so.

Under Texas Government Code § 82.0651(c), any contract for legal services obtained through barratry is voidable at your option. That means you, not the attorney, get to decide whether the contract stands. You can walk away. And if you have already paid fees, you may be entitled to get them back.

This is not a technicality. The Texas Legislature put this provision in the law precisely because they understood what is at stake when a client is solicited illegally. The relationship between an attorney and client must be built on trust, not on a cash payment to a stranger who bought your accident report or got a tip from someone at the hospital. When that foundation is corrupt, the law lets you start over.

Step 1: Recognize what happened. If you received unsolicited calls, texts, or visits from people claiming to represent or be connected to a law firm shortly after your accident or after the death of a family member, that is the red flag. You didn’t contact them. They came to you, and someone paid them to do it.

Step 2: Formally void the contract in writing. Send a written notice to the attorney stating that you are voiding the fee agreement under Texas Government Code § 82.0651(c) based on conduct constituting barratry under Texas Penal Code § 38.12. A template for that letter is included at the bottom of this article. Keep a copy of everything.

Step 3: Hire a reputable attorney to handle the transition. A new, legitimate attorney can help you navigate what happens next, including dealing with any attempt by the former firm to place a lien on your case. One important consideration: Texas law imposes a two-year statute of limitations on most personal injury claims, so don’t delay the transition longer than necessary.

Get the Compensation You Deserve: Schedule a free consultation with Varghese Summersett today.

What About the Lien? Can the Old Firm Still Come After Your Recovery?

This is where it gets important, and where people sometimes stay stuck with a bad firm out of fear.

When you fire an attorney, they may assert what is called a charging lien, a claim on any future settlement or judgment in your case representing the fees they say they are owed. It is one of the main ways bad actors try to hold clients hostage even after the relationship has fallen apart.

But a lien built on an illegal contract is a lien built on sand.

If the underlying fee agreement is void because it was procured through barratry, the first attorney has no valid contractual basis for the lien. The contract that would support their claim is the same contract you just voided.

They may argue they are still entitled to the reasonable value of any work they actually performed, a legal theory called quantum meruit. Courts have been deeply reluctant to let attorneys who engaged in illegal solicitation recover even under that theory, because doing so would essentially reward the very conduct the law is designed to punish.

A competent new attorney can protect you by escrowing any disputed amount at settlement and forcing the former firm to go to court and prove their entitlement. In a barratry situation, many will quietly go away rather than litigate their own illegal conduct in open court. Understanding how personal injury settlements work and how fee disputes are resolved can help you make sense of this process.

How Do You Hire a New Attorney After Firing One for Barratry?

Once you have sent your notice, your next call should be to a personal injury or wrongful death attorney who had nothing to do with how you were originally signed up.

When you call, tell them upfront: you hired an attorney, you believe that attorney obtained your case through a case runner, and you have fired them on the basis of barratry. Then give them a brief rundown of where your case stands. How long ago did the accident or death occur? Has a lawsuit been filed? What medical treatment has taken place? Has there been any contact with the insurance company?

This matters for two reasons. First, a reputable firm needs to know the history before they can tell you whether they can help. Second, it is a filter. How a firm responds to that conversation tells you a lot about who you are dealing with. A firm worth hiring will ask the right follow-up questions, take the barratry issue seriously, and be straight with you about whether the case is a good fit. A firm that glosses over it or seems indifferent to how you ended up in this situation is not the firm you want.

The goal of that first call is not to sign a contract. It is to have an honest conversation so both of you can decide whether moving forward together makes sense. The right attorney will want to understand your case on its merits not just take it because it is available. Our guide on how to hire a personal injury lawyer lays out the questions you should ask before signing anything. And if you want a realistic sense of what the road ahead looks like, our personal injury case timeline explains each stage of the process.

Should You Report It?

Yes. If you were solicited through a case runner, you can and should file a complaint with the State Bar of Texas at texasbar.com. Texas attorneys who use case runners face disciplinary action, including suspension and disbarment. The case runner themselves can face criminal charges.

The calls and texts you received weren’t just annoying. They were illegal. And the firm behind them is still out there, doing it to someone else right now, including families who just lost someone and haven’t even made it home from the hospital yet. Reporting it protects the next family.

Template: Notice of Contract Voidance Due to Barratry

How to use this template: Fill in every field marked in brackets. Every field is required. Do not leave any blank. When done, send this letter two ways: (1) certified mail with return receipt requested to the attorney’s office address, and (2) email to the attorney directly. Save copies of everything, including the signed letter, the certified mail receipt, and the email confirmation. Attach any call logs, text screenshots, voicemails, or other records of the contact that led you to the firm.

[YOUR FULL NAME]
[Your Street Address]
[City, State, ZIP]
[Your Email Address]
[Your Phone Number]

[Today’s Date]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND VIA EMAIL TO: [Attorney’s Email Address]

[Attorney’s Full Name]
[Law Firm Name]
[Law Firm Street Address]
[City, State, ZIP]

Re: Notice of Voidance of Legal Services Contract, [Your Full Name]

Dear [Attorney’s Full Name]:

This letter constitutes formal notice that I am voiding the legal services contract between myself and [Law Firm Name], dated [Date you signed the contract], pursuant to Texas Government Code § 82.0651(c).

How I Was Directed to Your Firm

I was contacted on [Date] at approximately [Time] by [phone call / text message / in-person visit] from a person I did not know and had not contacted. That person was not a licensed attorney. They referenced my [accident / the death of my family member] and directed me to your firm. I had no prior relationship with this person. I had not posted publicly, sought a referral, or taken any action that would account for how my information reached them. I did not seek out your firm. Your firm reached out to me through this individual.

Voidance of Contract

The conduct described above constitutes solicitation of legal employment through a person who was not a licensed attorney, in violation of Texas Penal Code § 38.12. Under Texas Government Code § 82.0651(c), a contract for legal services procured through such conduct is voidable at the client’s election.

I am exercising that right. Effective as of the date of this letter, the legal services contract between myself and [Law Firm Name] is void and unenforceable. I will not honor any claim for fees, costs, or compensation arising from that contract.

No Lien Shall Attach

No lien of any kind, whether retaining, charging, or otherwise, shall attach to any recovery, settlement, judgment, or proceeds in my case. Any such lien would be premised on a contract that has been voided pursuant to Texas law and is without legal foundation. I will contest any such claim and reserve all rights and remedies available to me.

Demand for Client File

Pursuant to the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, I demand the immediate return of my complete client file at no charge. This includes, without limitation: all pleadings, motions, court filings, and discovery materials; all correspondence and communications of any kind, including emails, letters, and written notes; all call logs and records of phone communications, including all calls and communications with opposing counsel, insurance companies, insurance adjusters, medical providers, and any attorney or party outside your firm; all medical records, bills, and records requests submitted on my behalf; all investigative materials, photographs, videos, and evidence; all contracts, fee agreements, and engagement letters; and any other document or record generated or received in connection with my matter.

Please transmit my complete file electronically to: [Your Email Address]

I expect delivery within 7 days of the date of this letter.

I am proceeding with new legal representation. Nothing in this letter shall be construed as a waiver of any right or remedy available to me under Texas law.

Sincerely,

___________________________________
[Your Full Name]
[Today’s Date]

Attach to this letter: Any call logs, text message screenshots, voicemails, or other records showing how you were contacted and directed to this firm.

This template is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed Texas attorney before sending this letter if you have questions about your specific situation.

What to Expect From Varghese Summersett

Varghese Summersett is a full-service Texas law firm with more than 70 team members and offices in Fort Worth, Dallas, Southlake, and Houston. Our personal injury division is led by attorneys with backgrounds as former prosecutors and former insurance defense lawyers meaning they know exactly how insurance companies build their cases and how to counter them. We have handled catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases across Texas, and we treat every client as someone whose life has been permanently altered, not as a file number in a volume practice.

We did not use a case runner to find you. We earned your search. That matters, because the way a firm gets its clients tells you exactly how it will treat them. If you were solicited illegally and want a free consultation to talk through your options, including how to switch attorneys without jeopardizing your case, we are ready to help.

Find Out What Your Case Is Worth call Varghese Summersett for a free consultation.

Award-Winning Legal Excellence

Ask Varghese Summersett AI

Versus-AI has been taught everything from our website and is here to help you find the answers you need. Ask Versus-AI anything.

Watch: When to Hire a Personal Injury Attorney

Frequently Asked Questions About Case Runners and Barratry in Texas

What is a case runner in Texas?

A case runner is a person paid by a law firm to find accident victims or grieving families and sign them up as clients. Case runners may call, text, or visit potential clients after accidents or deaths often without the client’s having sought any legal help. Using case runners to solicit clients is illegal in Texas under Texas Penal Code § 38.12.

Is barratry a crime in Texas?

Yes. Barratry, which includes paying someone to solicit legal clients, is a criminal offense in Texas under Texas Penal Code § 38.12. Both the case runner and the attorney who hired them can face criminal charges, as well as State Bar disciplinary action including suspension or disbarment.

Can I get out of a contract I signed because of a case runner?

Yes. Under Texas Government Code § 82.0651(c), any legal services contract obtained through barratry is voidable at the client’s option. You can send a written notice voiding the contract, and you are not required to pay fees under that agreement. A template notice is included on this page.

Can the old attorney keep a lien on my settlement after I fire them for barratry?

A lien depends on a valid underlying contract. Because a barratry contract is voidable, the attorney generally has no valid contractual foundation for a charging lien. They may claim quantum meruit (the value of work performed), but courts are reluctant to award this when the attorney engaged in illegal solicitation. A new attorney can help you challenge or escrow any disputed amount at settlement.

Will switching attorneys hurt my personal injury case?

Not necessarily. The transition takes some coordination, but it is done routinely in Texas. The most important consideration is time: Texas has a two-year statute of limitations for most personal injury claims, so you should not delay the switch longer than needed. A new attorney can request your full file, review where the case stands, and pick up the representation without starting from scratch.

Texas Personal Injury Practice Areas

Our Texas injury lawyers fight for maximum compensation

Main Pages

Auto Accidents

Other Vehicle Accidents

Bicycle Accidents
Pedestrian Accidents
Bus Accidents
Boat Accidents
ATV Accidents
Golf Cart Accidents
Self-Driving Car AccidentsTexas Penal Code § 38.12, and any contract you signed as a result is voidable at your option under Texas Government Code § 82.0651(c).

You have the right to walk away, hire new counsel, and Texas law is on your side.

Varghese Summersett is a Texas law firm with offices in Fort Worth, Dallas, Southlake, and Houston. Our personal injury attorneys came to every client the right way: through reputation, referrals, and results. We never use case runners. We represent injured Texans and grieving families who want a firm that earns their trust, not one that purchased their file. If you were solicited by a case runner and want to know your options, call us for a free consultation.

You've Seen Us On

How Illegal Case Runners Operate in Texas

You didn’t even make it home from the hospital before it started.

Twenty calls in a week. Maybe more. Texts from numbers you didn’t recognize. Someone showing up asking about your injuries. All of them strangers claiming they heard about your accident or your loved one’s death, all of them eager to connect you with a lawyer who could help. Some sounded friendly. Some sounded official. A few may have even known details you didn’t expect a stranger to know.

You’re not imagining things. You’re not being paranoid. What you experienced has a name, and in Texas, it is a crime.

What Is a Case Runner, and Why Should You Care?

Texas law calls them case runners. You might know them by other names: ambulance chasers, bird dogs, runners, or just the person who somehow found your number hours after your wreck or hours after your family member passed away.

A case runner is someone paid by a law firm to find victims and grieving families and bring them in as clients. They haunt emergency rooms and hospitals. They monitor police scanners. They buy accident reports and death records. They pay tow truck drivers, hospital employees, and first responders for tips. Then they call you, text you, show up at your door, or track you down on social media. All of it happens on someone else’s payroll, and all of it is designed to funnel you toward a specific law firm that is paying for the referral.

This practice is called barratry. Under Texas Penal Code § 38.12, it is a criminal offense not a gray area, not a technical violation. A crime, for the case runner and for the attorney who hired them.

It happens in personal injury cases after car accidents, truck accidents, and workplace injuries. It happens in wrongful death cases when a family is still in the hospital or still making funeral arrangements. The type of case doesn’t matter. What matters is that someone was paid to find you before you ever had a chance to think clearly about who you wanted to represent you.

Does the Law Firm That Cheats to Get Your Case Play by the Rules When It’s Time to Pay You?

Here is the question you need to sit with: if a law firm is willing to break the law to get your case, what makes you think they will play by the rules when it is time to pay you?

Think about what barratry tells you about a firm’s culture. It tells you they don’t believe they can earn clients the honest way, through reputation, results, and word of mouth. It tells you they’ve decided the rules don’t apply to them when it is inconvenient. And it tells you something important about their economics: they are paying, often handsomely, for every single client who walks through the door. That wheel has to keep spinning, which means they need volume, which means they need to move cases fast, cheap, and constantly.

That is not a recipe for the careful, patient, aggressive representation you deserve after a serious accident or the loss of a family member.

A firm running on case runners is a firm running on pressure. Pressure to settle quickly. Pressure to take whatever the insurance company offers rather than fight for what you are actually owed. Pressure to spend as little time on your case as possible so they can chase the next one. You are not a client to them. You are inventory.

And when the settlement check finally arrives, after they have taken their cut, covered their case runner fees, and moved on to the next referral, you may find yourself wondering why the number seems so much smaller than you expected. In a wrongful death case, where no amount of money replaces what was lost, settling for less than full value because a firm was too busy feeding its pipeline is a particular kind of betrayal.

If you have concerns about how your case is being handled, our article on how and when to fire your personal injury attorney walks through the process step by step.

Texas Law Gives You a Way Out and You Should Use It

Here is what most people who have been victimized by this system don’t know: you can fire that attorney, and Texas law specifically protects your right to do so.

Under Texas Government Code § 82.0651(c), any contract for legal services obtained through barratry is voidable at your option. That means you, not the attorney, get to decide whether the contract stands. You can walk away. And if you have already paid fees, you may be entitled to get them back.

This is not a technicality. The Texas Legislature put this provision in the law precisely because they understood what is at stake when a client is solicited illegally. The relationship between an attorney and client must be built on trust, not on a cash payment to a stranger who bought your accident report or got a tip from someone at the hospital. When that foundation is corrupt, the law lets you start over.

Step 1: Recognize what happened. If you received unsolicited calls, texts, or visits from people claiming to represent or be connected to a law firm shortly after your accident or after the death of a family member, that is the red flag. You didn’t contact them. They came to you, and someone paid them to do it.

Step 2: Formally void the contract in writing. Send a written notice to the attorney stating that you are voiding the fee agreement under Texas Government Code § 82.0651(c) based on conduct constituting barratry under Texas Penal Code § 38.12. A template for that letter is included at the bottom of this article. Keep a copy of everything.

Step 3: Hire a reputable attorney to handle the transition. A new, legitimate attorney can help you navigate what happens next, including dealing with any attempt by the former firm to place a lien on your case. One important consideration: Texas law imposes a two-year statute of limitations on most personal injury claims, so don’t delay the transition longer than necessary.

Get the Compensation You Deserve: Schedule a free consultation with Varghese Summersett today.

What About the Lien? Can the Old Firm Still Come After Your Recovery?

This is where it gets important, and where people sometimes stay stuck with a bad firm out of fear.

When you fire an attorney, they may assert what is called a charging lien, a claim on any future settlement or judgment in your case representing the fees they say they are owed. It is one of the main ways bad actors try to hold clients hostage even after the relationship has fallen apart.

But a lien built on an illegal contract is a lien built on sand.

If the underlying fee agreement is void because it was procured through barratry, the first attorney has no valid contractual basis for the lien. The contract that would support their claim is the same contract you just voided.

They may argue they are still entitled to the reasonable value of any work they actually performed, a legal theory called quantum meruit. Courts have been deeply reluctant to let attorneys who engaged in illegal solicitation recover even under that theory, because doing so would essentially reward the very conduct the law is designed to punish.

A competent new attorney can protect you by escrowing any disputed amount at settlement and forcing the former firm to go to court and prove their entitlement. In a barratry situation, many will quietly go away rather than litigate their own illegal conduct in open court. Understanding how personal injury settlements work and how fee disputes are resolved can help you make sense of this process.

How Do You Hire a New Attorney After Firing One for Barratry?

Once you have sent your notice, your next call should be to a personal injury or wrongful death attorney who had nothing to do with how you were originally signed up.

When you call, tell them upfront: you hired an attorney, you believe that attorney obtained your case through a case runner, and you have fired them on the basis of barratry. Then give them a brief rundown of where your case stands. How long ago did the accident or death occur? Has a lawsuit been filed? What medical treatment has taken place? Has there been any contact with the insurance company?

This matters for two reasons. First, a reputable firm needs to know the history before they can tell you whether they can help. Second, it is a filter. How a firm responds to that conversation tells you a lot about who you are dealing with. A firm worth hiring will ask the right follow-up questions, take the barratry issue seriously, and be straight with you about whether the case is a good fit. A firm that glosses over it or seems indifferent to how you ended up in this situation is not the firm you want.

The goal of that first call is not to sign a contract. It is to have an honest conversation so both of you can decide whether moving forward together makes sense. The right attorney will want to understand your case on its merits not just take it because it is available. Our guide on how to hire a personal injury lawyer lays out the questions you should ask before signing anything. And if you want a realistic sense of what the road ahead looks like, our personal injury case timeline explains each stage of the process.

Should You Report It?

Yes. If you were solicited through a case runner, you can and should file a complaint with the State Bar of Texas at texasbar.com. Texas attorneys who use case runners face disciplinary action, including suspension and disbarment. The case runner themselves can face criminal charges.

The calls and texts you received weren’t just annoying. They were illegal. And the firm behind them is still out there, doing it to someone else right now, including families who just lost someone and haven’t even made it home from the hospital yet. Reporting it protects the next family.

Template: Notice of Contract Voidance Due to Barratry

How to use this template: Fill in every field marked in brackets. Every field is required. Do not leave any blank. When done, send this letter two ways: (1) certified mail with return receipt requested to the attorney’s office address, and (2) email to the attorney directly. Save copies of everything, including the signed letter, the certified mail receipt, and the email confirmation. Attach any call logs, text screenshots, voicemails, or other records of the contact that led you to the firm.

[YOUR FULL NAME]
[Your Street Address]
[City, State, ZIP]
[Your Email Address]
[Your Phone Number]

[Today’s Date]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND VIA EMAIL TO: [Attorney’s Email Address]

[Attorney’s Full Name]
[Law Firm Name]
[Law Firm Street Address]
[City, State, ZIP]

Re: Notice of Voidance of Legal Services Contract, [Your Full Name]

Dear [Attorney’s Full Name]:

This letter constitutes formal notice that I am voiding the legal services contract between myself and [Law Firm Name], dated [Date you signed the contract], pursuant to Texas Government Code § 82.0651(c).

How I Was Directed to Your Firm

I was contacted on [Date] at approximately [Time] by [phone call / text message / in-person visit] from a person I did not know and had not contacted. That person was not a licensed attorney. They referenced my [accident / the death of my family member] and directed me to your firm. I had no prior relationship with this person. I had not posted publicly, sought a referral, or taken any action that would account for how my information reached them. I did not seek out your firm. Your firm reached out to me through this individual.

Voidance of Contract

The conduct described above constitutes solicitation of legal employment through a person who was not a licensed attorney, in violation of Texas Penal Code § 38.12. Under Texas Government Code § 82.0651(c), a contract for legal services procured through such conduct is voidable at the client’s election.

I am exercising that right. Effective as of the date of this letter, the legal services contract between myself and [Law Firm Name] is void and unenforceable. I will not honor any claim for fees, costs, or compensation arising from that contract.

No Lien Shall Attach

No lien of any kind, whether retaining, charging, or otherwise, shall attach to any recovery, settlement, judgment, or proceeds in my case. Any such lien would be premised on a contract that has been voided pursuant to Texas law and is without legal foundation. I will contest any such claim and reserve all rights and remedies available to me.

Demand for Client File

Pursuant to the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, I demand the immediate return of my complete client file at no charge. This includes, without limitation: all pleadings, motions, court filings, and discovery materials; all correspondence and communications of any kind, including emails, letters, and written notes; all call logs and records of phone communications, including all calls and communications with opposing counsel, insurance companies, insurance adjusters, medical providers, and any attorney or party outside your firm; all medical records, bills, and records requests submitted on my behalf; all investigative materials, photographs, videos, and evidence; all contracts, fee agreements, and engagement letters; and any other document or record generated or received in connection with my matter.

Please transmit my complete file electronically to: [Your Email Address]

I expect delivery within 7 days of the date of this letter.

I am proceeding with new legal representation. Nothing in this letter shall be construed as a waiver of any right or remedy available to me under Texas law.

Sincerely,

___________________________________
[Your Full Name]
[Today’s Date]

Attach to this letter: Any call logs, text message screenshots, voicemails, or other records showing how you were contacted and directed to this firm.

This template is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed Texas attorney before sending this letter if you have questions about your specific situation.

What to Expect From Varghese Summersett

Varghese Summersett is a full-service Texas law firm with more than 70 team members and offices in Fort Worth, Dallas, Southlake, and Houston. Our personal injury division is led by attorneys with backgrounds as former prosecutors and former insurance defense lawyers meaning they know exactly how insurance companies build their cases and how to counter them. We have handled catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases across Texas, and we treat every client as someone whose life has been permanently altered, not as a file number in a volume practice.

We did not use a case runner to find you. We earned your search. That matters, because the way a firm gets its clients tells you exactly how it will treat them. If you were solicited illegally and want a free consultation to talk through your options, including how to switch attorneys without jeopardizing your case, we are ready to help.

Find Out What Your Case Is Worth call Varghese Summersett for a free consultation.

Award-Winning Legal Excellence

Ask Varghese Summersett AI

Versus-AI has been taught everything from our website and is here to help you find the answers you need. Ask Versus-AI anything.

Watch: When to Hire a Personal Injury Attorney

Frequently Asked Questions About Case Runners and Barratry in Texas

What is a case runner in Texas?

A case runner is a person paid by a law firm to find accident victims or grieving families and sign them up as clients. Case runners may call, text, or visit potential clients after accidents or deaths often without the client’s having sought any legal help. Using case runners to solicit clients is illegal in Texas under Texas Penal Code § 38.12.

Is barratry a crime in Texas?

Yes. Barratry, which includes paying someone to solicit legal clients, is a criminal offense in Texas under Texas Penal Code § 38.12. Both the case runner and the attorney who hired them can face criminal charges, as well as State Bar disciplinary action including suspension or disbarment.

Can I get out of a contract I signed because of a case runner?

Yes. Under Texas Government Code § 82.0651(c), any legal services contract obtained through barratry is voidable at the client’s option. You can send a written notice voiding the contract, and you are not required to pay fees under that agreement. A template notice is included on this page.

Can the old attorney keep a lien on my settlement after I fire them for barratry?

A lien depends on a valid underlying contract. Because a barratry contract is voidable, the attorney generally has no valid contractual foundation for a charging lien. They may claim quantum meruit (the value of work performed), but courts are reluctant to award this when the attorney engaged in illegal solicitation. A new attorney can help you challenge or escrow any disputed amount at settlement.

Will switching attorneys hurt my personal injury case?

Not necessarily. The transition takes some coordination, but it is done routinely in Texas. The most important consideration is time: Texas has a two-year statute of limitations for most personal injury claims, so you should not delay the switch longer than needed. A new attorney can request your full file, review where the case stands, and pick up the representation without starting from scratch.
Texas Personal Injury Practice Areas

Our Texas injury lawyers fight for maximum compensation
Main Pages
Auto Accidents
Other Vehicle Accidents

What happens when a bondsman goes off bond?

Varghese Summersett — Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:42:28 Z

When a bail bondsman “goes off bond” in Texas, it means they’ve revoked their financial guarantee and surrendered you into custody. Your original bond is gone. Getting back out requires a court hearing, and the clock is already ticking.

What Does It Mean When a Bondsman Goes Off Your Bond?

When a bail bondsman posts your bond, they’re making a financial promise to the court: if you fail to appear, they’ll pay the full bail amount. In exchange, you or your family paid them a non-refundable premium, typically 10% to 15% of the bond amount.

Going off your bond also called a bond surrender or bond revocation means the bondsman is canceling that promise. They physically deliver you to the jail and formally notify the court that they’re no longer responsible for your appearance. Once that happens, the bond is vacated and you’re back in custody as if the bond was never posted.

This is legal. Under Texas Occupations Code § 1704, a licensed bail bond surety has the authority to arrest and surrender a defendant at any time before a bond forfeiture judgment is entered. They do not need a warrant. They do not need law enforcement assistance, though they often work with law enforcement. They simply need to have written authority from the court that issued the bond.

Why You Need an Attorney Right Now

Varghese Summersett is one of Texas’s most respected criminal defense firms, with offices in Fort Worth, Dallas, Houston, and Southlake. Our team includes Board Certified Criminal Law Specialists, former prosecutors with decades of courtroom experience, and attorneys who have appeared in over 500 jury trials. The firm has secured more than 1,600 dismissals and 800+ charge reductions for clients across the state.

When a bondsman surrenders you, every hour you sit in jail is an hour your attorney could be filing for a bond hearing. Board Certified Criminal Law Specialist Benson Varghese and Board Certified Criminal Law Specialist Anna Summersett both former prosecutors lead a team of 70+ legal professionals who handle exactly these kinds of urgent bond situations around the clock.

If your bondsman just went off your bond, the right call is to an attorney, not another bondsman. Here’s what you need to know.

You've Seen Us On

Common Reasons a Bondsman Goes Off Your Bond

Bondsmen are in the business of managing risk. When they posted your bond, they made a calculated bet that you’d show up to court. If something changes that bet, they act quickly. The most common triggers are:

Missed check-ins: Most bondsmen require regular contact. Go dark, and they get nervous fast.
New arrests: Getting arrested on a new charge while out on bond almost always triggers a surrender.
Suspicion of flight risk: If the bondsman hears you’re planning to leave Texas or the country, they’ll move immediately.
Bond condition violations: Travel restrictions, no-contact orders, curfews violating any of these puts your bond in jeopardy.
Failure to pay: If you haven’t paid the full premium or have fallen behind on a payment plan, the bondsman may pull out.
You’ve become hard to locate: If they can’t find you, they won’t wait around hoping you appear at your court date.
Co-signer request: If the person who co-signed your bond asks to be removed from financial liability, the bondsman’s hand is often forced.
Change in risk profile: New information about your circumstances, background, or behavior that makes you a worse bet than when the bond was written.

You may have a legitimate explanation for whatever triggered the surrender. That explanation is best delivered by your attorney in front of a judge, not argued directly with the bondsman after the fact.

The Legal Framework: What Texas Law Actually Says

Bond in Texas is governed by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 17, which authorizes pretrial release and establishes how bonds are set, modified, and revoked. The bond is fundamentally a contract between three parties: you, the bondsman, and the court. When the bondsman exits that arrangement, the court doesn’t automatically step aside the court becomes the controlling party.

Under CCP Chapter 17, a judge has the authority to set, modify, deny, or reinstate bond at any stage of a criminal proceeding. The bondsman had the authority to write the original bond, but reinstating or resetting a bond after revocation is something only the judge can do. This isn’t a technicality it reflects the fact that the bond was always the court’s instrument for ensuring your appearance, and the bondsman was simply a financial guarantor within that system.

When a bondsman surrenders you, two things typically happen quickly. First, the jail logs you back into custody. Second, the bondsman files documentation with the court confirming the surrender and ending their liability. Any bail bond forfeiture proceedings that may have been pending against the bondsman are typically dismissed, because they’ve done what the law allows them to do.

At that point, you are held without bond until a judge enters a new order. Depending on your charge and criminal history, the judge could set a new bond, reinstate the previous one with modifications, or deny bail altogether. The outcome depends heavily on how your attorney presents the situation.

What Happens Immediately After You’re Surrendered

The sequence moves quickly once a bondsman surrenders you. You’re booked back into the county jail and your case status updates to reflect that you are in custody without an active bond. A warrant may or may not have been issued before the surrender, depending on whether you also missed a court date.

If you missed a court date on top of the bond revocation, the judge will have issued an alias warrant for failure to appear. That creates a second problem layered on top of the first now you’re facing both the original charges and a potential failure to appear charge under Texas Penal Code § 38.10, which can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony depending on the underlying case.

The good news is that neither problem is unsolvable with competent legal representation. But the window to address them efficiently closes the longer you wait.

How to Get Your Bond Reinstated in Texas

Getting back out after a bondsman goes off your bond requires going back to court. There is no shortcut around this. The process typically looks like this:

Hire or contact your attorney immediately. Your lawyer needs to file a motion to reinstate bond or request a bond hearing. This cannot wait. Every day without a motion filed is another day you’re sitting in jail.
Bond hearing before the judge. Your attorney will argue why you should be released again. They’ll need to address the specific reason the bondsman surrendered you and demonstrate to the court that those concerns have been resolved or are being addressed.
Negotiate with a new bondsman or the original one. Sometimes the original bondsman will rewrite the bond once the underlying issue is addressed unpaid premiums caught up, a missed check-in explained. More often, you’ll need to find a new bondsman who is willing to take on the risk at whatever amount the judge sets.
Meet new or additional conditions. Judges often add stricter conditions before reinstating release. GPS monitoring, higher bond amounts, more frequent check-ins, surrendering a passport, or requiring a family member to take on greater co-signer responsibility are all common outcomes.
Pay a new premium. If a new bond is set, the premium starts over. Money already paid to the previous bondsman is generally not refunded, since that premium covered their risk for the time you were out.

The strength of the argument your attorney makes at the bond hearing and how quickly they file for it directly affects how long you stay in custody. A well-prepared attorney who knows the court and the judge can often get a hearing scheduled faster and argue more persuasively for your release than someone navigating this alone.

If you have a pending criminal case, your attorney can simultaneously address both the bond situation and your underlying charges, making sure the bond hearing doesn’t create additional complications for your main defense.

What to Expect From Varghese Summersett

When you call Varghese Summersett, you reach a team that handles bond emergencies regularly. Our attorneys know what it takes to get a bond hearing scheduled quickly, what judges look for in reinstatement motions, and how to address the specific concerns that led to the surrender in the first place.

With four offices across Texas and a team that includes former prosecutors with decades of experience on both sides of the courtroom, we have the reach and the knowledge to handle your situation wherever you are in the state. Our bail bonds defense attorneys work alongside your criminal defense team so that your bond situation and your underlying case are handled as a unified strategy, not two separate fires.

We understand this is one of the most stressful moments you or your family can face. Reach a member of our team around the clock to get the process started.

Award-Winning Legal Excellence

Ask Varghese Summersett AI

Versus-AI has been taught everything from our website and is here to help you find the answers you need. Ask Versus-AI anything.

Watch: Bondsman or Attorney Who Do You Call First?

In this video, one of our attorneys explains exactly what to do when you need to bond someone out of jail and why the order of operations matters.

Video Transcript (Click to Expand)

If someone you care about has just been arrested in Texas, you’re probably wondering whether to call a bondsman first or an attorney. The answer depends on the situation but in most cases, calling an attorney first gives you a critical advantage. An attorney can tell you whether the bond that’s been set is appropriate, whether there are grounds to request a bond reduction, and what conditions are likely to be attached to release. A bondsman can post the bond, but they can’t advise you on any of that. When the stakes are high, knowing the full picture before you post bond can save time, money, and complications down the road.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I just find a new bondsman without going back to court?

No. Once your bond has been revoked and you’ve been surrendered, there is no active bond for another bondsman to take over. A judge must set a new bond before a new bondsman can write it. Any bondsman who tells you otherwise is either misinformed or misleading you.

Do I get my premium back if the bondsman goes off my bond?

Generally, no. The premium you paid is earned by the bondsman for the period of time they were financially responsible for your appearance. Texas law does not require them to return it simply because they chose to exercise their right to surrender you. If you believe the bondsman acted improperly, that’s a separate issue your attorney can advise you on.

How long will I be in jail waiting for a bond hearing?

That depends on how quickly your attorney files for a hearing, the court’s docket, and the county you’re in. In some cases a hearing can be set within a day or two with aggressive legal action. In others it may take longer. The sooner you have an attorney working on the motion, the faster the process moves.

What if I also missed a court date does that make this worse?

Yes, significantly. A missed court date typically triggers an alias warrant and may result in a separate failure to appear charge. Under Texas Penal Code § 38.10, bail jumping and failure to appear can be charged as a Class A misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the level of your underlying offense. Your attorney will need to address both the bond reinstatement and the missed court date in a coordinated way.

Can the judge deny bond entirely after a surrender?

Yes. Depending on your charges, your history, and the circumstances that led to the surrender, a judge has the authority to hold you without bond pending trial. This is more common in serious felony cases, cases involving violations of protective orders, or situations where the judge finds that no conditions would adequately ensure your appearance. An experienced attorney gives you the best chance of avoiding that outcome.

Texas Criminal Defense Resources

Fort Worth Criminal Defense Lawyer

Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer

Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer

Fort Bend Criminal Defense Lawyer

General criminal defense information for Texas

Facing charges in Texas? Get a free consultation.

(817) 203-2220

If your bondsman has gone off your bond, you don’t have time to wait. An attorney can begin working on your release today call (817) 203-2220 to reach a member of the Varghese Summersett team any time, day or night.

The Dangers of Asking AI Legal Questions (2026 Court Decision)

Varghese Summersett — Thu, 19 Feb 2026 03:17:21 Z

When you turn to AI for help, it can feel like a private conversation, one where you are free to think out loud, explore ideas, and ask questions you might not ask anyone else. However, a recent ruling out of a federal court in New York highlights the dangers of asking AI legal questions, or using AI as a sounding board for your legal strategy.

The full opinion came in United States v. Heppner, No. 25-Cr-503 (S.D.N.Y.) and was issued on February 17, 2026. But the legal reasoning extends far beyond federal criminal court. The same arguments can be made in civil lawsuits and in state court. If you are using AI to think through a legal situation, you may be creating evidence you cannot take back.

You've Seen Us On

The Case: What Happened in Heppner

Bradley Heppner was a Dallas-based financial executive and CEO of GWG Holdings, a publicly traded company. In October 2025, a federal grand jury indicted him on securities fraud, wire fraud, and related charges. The government alleged he defrauded investors out of more than $150 million.

On his own initiative, Heppner opened Claude and had extended conversations with the AI. (Big Mistake #1) He asked it to help him analyze the anticipated charges, assess the facts, and think through possible defenses. He generated 31 documents from those sessions and later sent them to his defense team.

When FBI agents executed a search warrant at his home, they seized those printed transcripts. (Big Mistake #2) His lawyers asserted both attorney-client privilege and work product protection. Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York denied both arguments in full. One week after ruling from the bench, he issued a 12-page written memorandum explaining precisely why, applying the settled privilege doctrine that governs civil and criminal proceedings alike.

Read the Full Opinion

You can read Judge Rakoff’s complete 12-page written memorandum below.

Your browser does not support embedded PDFs. Click here to download the opinion.

Why the Law Does Not Protect AI Conversations

Attorney-client privilege requires three things:

a communication between a client and a licensed attorney,
that is kept confidential, and
for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.

AI conversations fail on every element.

An AI platform is not a lawyer. It cannot form an attorney-client relationship. The court noted that Claude itself, when asked by the government whether it could give legal advice, responded that it was not a lawyer, could not provide formal legal advice, and recommended that users consult a qualified attorney. The AI disclaimed the very role the defendant was claiming it had performed, and that response was submitted as an exhibit and cited in the ruling.

There was also no confidentiality. Heppner shared his communications with Anthropic, a third-party company whose privacy policy expressly states that it collects both user inputs and AI outputs, may use that data to train its models, and reserves the right to disclose user data to third parties, including governmental regulatory authorities. The court held that any reasonable reader of that policy would understand there is no confidentiality in those conversations. The same is true of ChatGPT (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), and Copilot (Microsoft). They all have substantially similar policies.

Defense counsel also argued the documents should be protected as attorney work product, materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. The court rejected that too, because the documents were not created by or at the direction of an attorney. Heppner’s own lawyers confirmed they never directed him to use Claude. Work product protection exists to shield an attorney’s mental processes and litigation strategy. It does not extend to documents a client independently creates, however strategically motivated. And critically: sending those documents to your lawyer afterward does not change their legal status. As the court put it, non-privileged communications are not alchemically transformed into privileged ones simply by being handed to a lawyer.

Does Paying for AI Make Your Conversations Confidential?

Many attorneys and litigants assume that upgrading from a free AI account to a paid subscription changes the legal picture around confidentiality. It does not. Payment changes the commercial relationship. You receive more features, higher usage limits, and in some cases stronger data handling commitments. But it does not alter the fundamental legal reality that you are transmitting information to a third-party company. The platform’s privacy policy, not your billing tier, governs how your data is handled, and those policies apply regardless of what you pay.

Every major AI platform’s paid consumer tier, including Claude Pro, ChatGPT Plus, and Gemini Advanced, still collects user inputs and outputs, still reserves the right to use that data consistent with its policies, and still remains subject to legal compulsion. Payment alone creates no expectation of confidentiality. Courts applying the Heppner analysis would reach the same conclusion whether the user was on a free account or a paid one.

What About Specialized Legal AI Tools and Workflow Platforms?

Clients and potential clients are increasingly drawn to specialized AI tools, including coding and workflow platforms, desktop automation software, and AI systems with legal-specific plug-ins. The appeal is understandable. But the confidentiality analysis does not change simply because the tool is more sophisticated or marketed toward legal professionals.

These platforms still route your inputs through third-party servers. A legal plug-in that helps you draft a motion or analyze case facts does not create attorney-client privilege between you and the software vendor. The underlying data handling architecture remains the same: your communications are processed externally, stored on systems outside your control, and subject to the vendor’s own legal obligations. If a government authority issues a subpoena to the company operating that platform, your legal plug-in agreement provides no protection. The vendor’s obligation to comply with lawful legal process supersedes any contractual privacy commitment made to you as a user.

What About LLMs with Enterprise or Business Plans?

Enterprise and business-tier agreements with AI companies do offer meaningful improvements over standard consumer accounts, and it is important to be precise about what they provide and where they fall short. Most enterprise agreements, including those offered by Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google, include commitments that the vendor will not use your inputs and outputs to train their models. They may also offer enhanced data retention controls and, in some cases, Business Associate Agreements for HIPAA compliance. These are real and commercially significant protections.

However, none of them create confidentiality in the legal sense, and none of them protect against compelled disclosure. The critical distinction is between a contractual commitment about use and a legal guarantee of confidentiality. When an enterprise agreement says your data will not be used for training, that is a promise about what the vendor will do with your information under normal circumstances. It is not a promise that the vendor can resist a federal subpoena, a government investigation, or a national security demand.

The AI company remains a third party. Its systems still process your data, and its own legal obligations govern its response to lawful process, not your contract. Courts examining privilege waiver ask whether information was voluntarily disclosed to a third party. An enterprise agreement does not change the answer to that question. The disclosure occurred the moment you transmitted the information to the platform.

Government Compulsion, Subpoenas, and the Limits of Vendor Promises

Even the most robust enterprise privacy agreement cannot protect your data from government compulsion. Federal and state authorities can subpoena AI companies directly, and the company’s obligation to respond is governed by law, not by its contract with you. National security letters issued under federal law may not only compel disclosure but prohibit the vendor from even notifying you that your data was requested. In civil litigation, opposing counsel can issue third-party subpoenas to AI platforms seeking your inputs and outputs as part of discovery.

Some enterprise agreements include notification provisions that require the vendor to alert you before complying with legal process, giving you a window to seek a protective order. That is a genuinely useful contractual feature. But it is a procedural opportunity, not a substantive protection. A court that finds your communications non-privileged will not be persuaded that the vendor’s notification clause retroactively restored confidentiality you waived at the moment of transmission.

Your Devices Can Be Seized and Searched

A separate and equally serious vulnerability exists much closer to home. Even setting aside what AI companies store on their servers, the devices you use to access these tools, including your laptop, your phone, and your tablet, are themselves potential evidence. Law enforcement can seize devices pursuant to a warrant, and courts have consistently upheld broad searches of electronic devices in criminal and civil contexts. Your AI conversation history, cached locally or accessible through a logged-in browser session, is fully within the scope of a device search.

This is not a theoretical risk. Device seizures in legal proceedings are increasingly common, and the data recovered from them is often far more comprehensive than individuals expect. Browser history, locally stored files, application data, and session logs can all reveal AI usage and its contents even when a user believes those conversations are private. The Stored Communications Act and related federal statutes provide some procedural protections, but they are not absolute and have significant exceptions for law enforcement access. If your device contains a record of what you asked an AI, and in most cases it does, that record is potentially accessible to anyone who lawfully obtains your device.

Printing It Out Makes It Easy Pickings

Perhaps the most straightforward vulnerability requires no technical analysis at all. If you print out AI-generated content, you have created a physical document that can be seen, copied, seized, and introduced as evidence by anyone with access to it. In Heppner itself, the fact that the defendant printed out his AI transcripts and later handed them to counsel was central to the government’s ability to obtain them. Printing AI output and leaving it on a desk, in a file, or in a briefcase eliminates even the modest procedural protections that might apply to data stored on encrypted devices or third-party servers.

Physical documents have no password protection. They can be photographed, photocopied, or simply read by anyone who encounters them. In a legal context, printed AI communications could be obtained through discovery, observed during a law enforcement search, or accessed by an employer with legitimate access to office spaces. Users who are careful about their digital privacy sometimes forget that the moment they produce a physical copy of an AI conversation, they have made that information dramatically more accessible. The lesson is not simply that AI conversations lack confidentiality at the platform level. It is that every step in the chain of handling that information, from transmission to storage to printing, creates additional exposure that any reasonable person should understand and account for.

Why This Matters Just as Much in Civil Litigation

The Heppner case involved a federal criminal prosecution, but the privilege doctrine Judge Rakoff applied is not criminal law. It is evidence law, and it governs civil cases just as fully. Texas Rule of Evidence 503 mirrors the federal framework. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 governs work product in civil federal litigation on the same terms it governs criminal cases. Any Texas court, state or federal, civil or criminal, would likely apply the same analysis and reach the same result.

That means the risk extends to a wide range of people who have never been accused of a crime and may never be.

Personal Injury Plaintiffs

You were seriously injured in a car accident or truck crash. Before you hired an attorney, or even after, you opened an AI chatbot to understand your situation. You described the accident in detail, asked whether you might be at fault, asked what your injuries might be worth, asked whether the other driver’s insurance was likely to fight the claim.

Every one of those prompts is potentially discoverable in your personal injury case. The insurance company’s lawyers can request your AI conversation records in discovery. If you gave the AI a version of events that differs from what you later tell your attorney, that inconsistency becomes a weapon. If you speculated about your own fault, those words can be quoted in a deposition. If you asked the AI to estimate your damages, opposing counsel can argue your expectations were inflated from the start.

This is not theoretical. Standard civil discovery requests ask for all documents reflecting communications about the incident at issue. An AI conversation about your accident is a document reflecting a communication about the incident at issue.

Accident Victims Who Did Their Own Research

Many people injured in accidents turn to AI before they contact a lawyer. They describe the crash, ask who might be liable, ask what “pain and suffering” means, ask whether they should accept the insurance company’s first offer. That research instinct is understandable. But the record of it, the prompts you typed and the outputs you read, exists in a platform that has no obligation to protect your confidentiality and every right to produce your records in response to a subpoena.

The moment you retain an attorney and that attorney begins advising you, your conversations with your lawyer are protected. Your earlier AI conversations are not, and retaining a lawyer does not change that retroactively.

Business Owners and Executives in Commercial Disputes

A contract dispute is pending. You ask AI to analyze the contract language and tell you whether the other side breached. You describe internal communications. You ask the AI to help you draft a response to a demand letter. You run through your potential liability exposure.

In the ensuing lawsuit, opposing counsel requests all documents discussing the contract and the dispute. Your AI conversations, with their detailed prompts describing the facts from your perspective, are responsive to that request. They may reveal your internal analysis of your own weaknesses. They may reflect admissions you did not intend to make. They exist in a third-party platform with a privacy policy that permits disclosure to courts and legal process.

HR Professionals and Employers

Before escalating to outside counsel, an HR director asks an AI to evaluate whether a termination decision is legally defensible. A manager asks AI to help draft a performance improvement plan. A business owner asks whether a non-compete agreement is enforceable after an employee resigns. All of those conversations could surface in the wrongful termination lawsuit, the breach of contract claim, or the employment discrimination case that follows.

Family Law Matters

A spouse who is considering divorce asks an AI to explain community property rules, estimate what a court might award, or analyze a prenuptial agreement. A parent asks AI to help understand custody standards in Texas. Those conversations, stored in a consumer AI platform, are subject to the same discovery rules as any other document. In contested family law proceedings, parties frequently seek broad document discovery, and courts in Texas have made clear that relevant documents mean relevant documents, regardless of where they were created or stored.

The Multiple Ways Your AI Conversations Can Surface

Understanding how these records get discovered matters as much as understanding that they can be discovered.

Civil discovery requests are the most common route in non-criminal litigation. Standard document requests in personal injury, employment, commercial, and family law cases ask for all communications about the subject matter of the lawsuit. An AI conversation is a communication. If it is stored on your device, in a browser, or in the platform’s servers, and it almost certainly is in all three places, it is responsive to a standard document request.

Subpoenas to the platforms themselves are also available. Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft all have policies allowing them to respond to legal process. A subpoena to one of those companies for your conversation history in connection with a specific litigation matter is legally available, and the companies can and do respond. You have no privilege to assert on your own behalf once you have voluntarily shared your information with a third party under a broad privacy policy.

Device forensics are a factor in cases involving serious enough stakes, including business divorces, high-value commercial litigation, and contested custody matters. Forensic examination of phones and computers can recover browser history, application data, cached AI conversations, and recently deleted files. Deleting your conversation history from the platform’s interface does not ensure it is gone from your devices.

And many people copy AI outputs into their own documents, including word processing files, emails, and notes sent to colleagues or family members. Those downstream documents carry the same exposure as the original AI conversation and may be even easier for opposing counsel to find because they are in familiar document formats.

How Legal Practice Management Platforms Are Different

There is a fundamental difference between a general-purpose AI platform and a dedicated legal practice management system, and that difference matters both doctrinally and practically. Platforms built specifically for law firms, such as MyCase, Clio, and Lawft, operate within a legal and contractual framework specifically designed to preserve the privilege that attaches to attorney-client communications and attorney work product. Critically, as tools built for lawyers, the word product privilege applies, and conversations with clients are protected through the attorney-client privilege.

When a law firm subscribes to a legal practice management platform, the relationship is governed by a vendor agreement that expressly acknowledges the privileged and confidential nature of the data being stored. These agreements typically include provisions that the vendor will not access, use, or disclose client data except as necessary to provide the service, that all stored communications will be treated as confidential, and that the vendor will notify the firm immediately upon receiving any legal process seeking access to firm data. This is materially different from the privacy policies of consumer AI platforms, which reserve broad rights to access, use, and disclose data.

The Necessary Third-Party Doctrine

One of the most important doctrinal tools available to legal practice management platforms is the necessary third-party doctrine. Under this principle, sharing privileged communications with a third party does not waive privilege if that third party’s involvement is necessary to facilitate the attorney-client relationship. Courts have applied this doctrine to legal secretaries, paralegals, co-counsel, expert witnesses, and technology vendors whose services are necessary to the modern practice of law.

A law firm that stores client files, communications, and case strategy in a practice management platform can argue, with substantial doctrinal support, that the platform is a necessary third party whose access to that information does not constitute a waiver of privilege. The attorney is not choosing to share confidential information with a stranger. The attorney is using a tool that is functionally equivalent to a filing cabinet or a legal pad, except that it happens to be cloud-based. Courts have increasingly accepted this framing, and bar associations in numerous states have issued ethics opinions confirming that attorneys may store client data in cloud-based systems without waiving privilege, provided they take reasonable steps to ensure confidentiality.

Work Product Protection in a Closed Environment

Attorney work product doctrine adds another critical layer of protection. Work product includes the mental impressions, legal theories, strategies, and analyses that attorneys develop in anticipation of litigation, and it receives protection that is in some respects stronger than attorney-client privilege itself. When attorneys use a practice management platform to draft case strategy, annotate documents, build timelines, or develop legal theories, that material is work product generated within a closed professional environment.

The closed environment architecture of legal practice management systems is legally significant. Unlike a general AI tool where inputs and outputs flow through open commercial infrastructure, a practice management platform is a walled system accessible only to the firm and its authorized users. Communications within that system do not flow to third parties in any meaningful sense. The platform operator is not reading your case strategy. It is storing it on your behalf, under a contractual obligation of confidentiality, in an environment designed around the professional obligations that govern legal practice.

How Subpoenas Are Resisted by Law Practice Management Software Platforms

When a subpoena is directed at a legal practice management company seeking client data, the company has both contractual and legal grounds to resist disclosure. Contractually, the vendor agreement typically requires the company to notify the law firm immediately and to cooperate with the firm’s efforts to quash or limit the subpoena. Legally, the firm itself can intervene, assert privilege and work product protection over the requested materials, and seek a protective order. Because the data was generated and stored in a privileged context, by attorneys, for clients, in anticipation of legal representation, the privilege assertion is substantively strong.

This is the procedural posture that makes legal practice management platforms categorically different from general AI tools. When Anthropic or OpenAI receives a subpoena for a user’s AI conversations, the user’s ability to resist is severely compromised because they have already conceded, by agreeing to the platform’s terms, that no confidentiality was promised and that the company may disclose data as required by law. When a dedicated legal practice management platform receives a subpoena, the law firm can step into that proceeding with a well-established privilege claim and litigate it from a position of strength. The platform’s architecture and vendor agreement support that claim rather than undermining it.

What to Expect Going Forward

Judge Rakoff’s opinion is methodical and well-grounded in existing law. The three elements of attorney-client privilege have been stable for generations. The work product doctrine has been settled since Hickman v. Taylor in 1947. Rakoff did not invent new rules. He simply asked whether AI conversations fit the existing framework and found that they do not.

The court did leave one path open: if a lawyer directs a client to use an AI tool as part of the representation, that use might qualify for work product protection. The theory is that the AI would be functioning as the lawyer’s agent, similar to how an accountant or investigator working at counsel’s direction can fall within the work product umbrella. That is a narrow opening, and it requires the attorney to have affirmatively directed the client’s AI use as part of the legal strategy. It does not help anyone who turned to AI on their own before or during a legal matter.

Attorney J. Turner Thornton Named a Fort Worth 40 Under 40

Varghese Summersett — Fri, 13 Feb 2026 04:46:46 Z

Attorney J. Turner Thornton a partner at Varghese Summersett who leads the firms Family Law Division has been named to Fort Worth Inc.s prestigious 40 Under 40 list, recognizing the citys most dynamic leaders under age 40.

Thornton and the other honorees were celebrated on Thursday, February 12, during a reception at River Ranch Stockyards. He is also featured in this months edition of Fort Worth Inc. magazine.

Im honored to have been selected along with such exceptional men and women, Thornton said. We all come from different personal and professional backgrounds, but we are motivated by the same purpose: to make a meaningful impact in the communities we serve.

The Fort Worth 40 Under 40 awards recognize rising leaders across Greater Fort Worth who are making a lasting impact in business and the community. Each year, 40 high-achieving professionals under the age of 40 are selected through a rigorous nomination and review process that evaluates career accomplishments, leadership influence, and civic engagement.

The program, which has honored exceptional talent in Tarrant County for decades, is widely regarded as a prestigious local award identifying the next generation of leaders shaping the regions future.

Thorntons selection reflects the remarkable growth and leadership he has demonstrated since launching Varghese Summersetts Family Law Division in 2021. What began as a new practice area has quickly become one of the regions most prominent family law teams. In fewer than four years, he has built and now leads a 17-member division spanning Fort Worth, Southlake, and Dallas.

Beyond his professional achievements, Thornton has made a meaningful impact across the Fort Worth community. A skilled litigator, negotiator, and mediator, he has guided hundreds of families through complex and emotionally charged legal matters, helping them move forward with clarity and stability.

He also dedicates his time to service and philanthropy serving as an elected board member of the Tarrant County Family Law Bar Association, serving on the school board of FUMC Dayschool, chairing the Wayne Ward Memorial Golf Tournament, and supporting scholarships for students with autism and Down Syndrome.

In 2024, he was honored with the Texas A&M School of Law Alumni Legacy Award, recognizing leaders who demonstrate excellence in their profession and a lasting commitment to their communities.

Thorntons leadership, service, and vision continue to shape not only his firm, but the broader legal landscape of North Texas.

Thornton is not the first attorney at Varghese Summersett to receive this esteemed award. Last year, Ty Stimpson, a partner who leads the firms Personal Injury Division, received the award. The year before that, Anna Summersett, co-founder of the firm, received the distinction underscoring the firms continued commitment to excellence and leadership within the Fort Worth community.

Turners recognition is well-deserved, said Managing Partner Benson Varghese. He sets that bar that others strive to reach. And we are proud to have had a Fort Worth 40 Under 40 honoree three years in a row. It reflects the depth of leadership within our firm and our commitment to making a meaningful impact in the communities we serve.

When a Vehicle Crashes into a Building, Who is Liable?

Varghese Summersett — Thu, 05 Feb 2026 09:07:33 Z

When a vehicle crashes into a home or building in Texas, the driver is usually liable, but other parties may share fault, including the driver’s employer, the vehicle owner, the property owner, or even a manufacturer, depending on the circumstances of the wreck. Identifying every responsible party is the key to maximizing your compensation.

Crashes into buildings happen far more often than most people realize. They can cause catastrophic injuries, massive property damage, and lasting trauma. If you or a loved one were inside a building when a vehicle struck it, Texas law gives you the right to pursue damages from every party whose negligence played a role.

How Common Are Vehicle-Into-Building Crashes?

More common than you might think. According to the Storefront Safety Council, vehicles crash into commercial buildings roughly 60 times per day across the United States. These incidents cause thousands of injuries and dozens of deaths every year. Homes are struck frequently as well, especially properties on corners, curves, or near high-speed roadways.

In Texas, the volume of traffic, the prevalence of high-speed roads, and urban sprawl make vehicle-into-building accidents an ongoing and serious risk. The Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex and Houston metro area are especially vulnerable due to dense commercial corridors and high-speed arterials that run close to storefronts and residential neighborhoods.

You've Seen Us On

Who Is Liable When a Vehicle Crashes Into a Building in Texas?

Figuring out who is legally responsible requires a thorough investigation into why the crash happened. Depending on the facts, one or more of the following parties may owe you compensation. We’ve listed them in order of how often they are found at fault in these cases.

1. The Driver

The driver is the most common party at fault in vehicle-into-building crashes. The vast majority of these incidents stem from driver error, including confusing the gas pedal for the brake (especially in parking lots), distracted driving, drunk or drugged driving, excessive speed, falling asleep behind the wheel, or fleeing law enforcement.

If the driver failed to exercise reasonable care, they can be held personally liable for your injuries and property damage. In cases involving intoxication or extreme recklessness, you may also be entitled to punitive damages designed to punish the wrongdoer.

2. Another Driver

In many vehicle-into-building crashes, the driver who struck the building was trying to avoid a collision with a different vehicle. If a second driver’s negligence forced the first driver off the road and into a structure, that second driver may also be liable, even if their car never touched the building.

Hit-and-run scenarios are also common. A fleeing driver causes the crash, then disappears. Witness statements, surveillance footage, and accident reconstruction experts can help identify and hold the at-fault driver accountable.

3. The Driver’s Employer

If the driver was working at the time of the crash, their employer may be vicariously liable under a legal doctrine called respondeat superior. This applies when an employee causes harm while acting in the course and scope of their job. Common examples include delivery drivers for Amazon, FedEx, or UPS, commercial truck operators, rideshare drivers for Uber or Lyft, and employees running work-related errands.

4. The Vehicle Owner

If the person driving was not the owner of the vehicle, the owner may be liable under a theory called negligent entrustment. This applies when someone lends their vehicle to a person they knew (or should have known) was an unsafe driver, such as someone with prior DWI convictions, a suspended license, or a medical condition that impairs their driving ability.

Texas courts have recognized negligent entrustment claims in many cases, and this theory can significantly expand the pool of available compensation.

5. The Property Owner or Business

This is where many people are surprised to learn they may have a claim. If a building has been struck by vehicles before, or if it sits in a location that makes it foreseeably vulnerable to vehicle intrusion (such as at the end of a T-intersection, on a curve, or beside a high-speed road), the property owner may share liability for failing to install protective barriers.

Bollards, concrete barriers, guardrails, and berms exist specifically to prevent vehicles from entering occupied spaces. When a property owner knows or should know about the risk and fails to take reasonable steps, they may be liable for injuries that result. This theory is especially strong for retail storefronts facing parking lots, restaurants with outdoor seating near roadways, gas stations and convenience stores at busy intersections, and buildings that have been hit by vehicles on prior occasions.

6. A Vehicle or Parts Manufacturer

Sometimes the crash is not entirely the driver’s fault. If a mechanical defect contributed to the accident, such as sudden unintended acceleration, brake failure, a stuck throttle, or a steering malfunction, the vehicle manufacturer, parts maker, or even the mechanic who serviced the vehicle may be liable under a product liability theory.

These claims require detailed expert analysis but can dramatically increase the value of a case because manufacturers carry substantial insurance and assets.

What Must You Prove to Recover Compensation?

Texas personal injury claims are based on negligence. To recover compensation, you (the plaintiff) must prove four elements by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more likely than not that each element is true. The burden of proof rests on you, not the defendant.

The four elements are:

Duty: The defendant owed you a duty of care. For drivers, this means operating their vehicle safely. For property owners, this means keeping the premises reasonably safe for occupants. For employers, this includes hiring and supervising competent employees.

Breach: The defendant failed to meet that duty. A driver who runs a red light, a property owner who ignores repeated vehicle strikes without installing barriers, or an employer who hires a driver with multiple DWI convictions all breach their respective duties.

Causation: The defendant’s breach directly caused your injuries. You must show a clear connection between the negligent act and the harm you suffered.

Damages: You suffered actual, measurable losses, including medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and property damage.

Texas also follows a modified comparative fault rule under Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 33.001. If you are found to be more than 50 percent at fault for your own injuries, you are barred from recovery. If your fault is 50 percent or less, your damages are reduced by your percentage of responsibility.

What Compensation Can You Recover?

If you were injured when a vehicle crashed into a building you were in, Texas law allows you to pursue both economic and non-economic damages.

Economic Damages

These cover your measurable financial losses: medical expenses (emergency care, hospitalization, surgery, rehabilitation, and future treatment), lost wages and lost earning capacity, property damage to your home and personal belongings, temporary housing or relocation costs, and other out-of-pocket expenses tied to the accident.

Non-Economic Damages

These compensate you for the human toll of the crash: physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement or physical impairment, and post-traumatic stress disorder or anxiety.

Punitive Damages

When the defendant’s conduct is especially egregious, such as drunk driving or fleeing from police, Texas courts may award exemplary (punitive) damages. These are meant to punish the wrongdoer and deter similar behavior.

Wrongful Death Claims

Vehicle-into-building crashes can be fatal. If you lost a loved one in one of these incidents, Texas law allows surviving spouses, children, and parents to file a wrongful death claim. These claims seek compensation for funeral and burial costs, loss of financial support, loss of companionship, and mental anguish.

What Should You Do After a Vehicle Crashes Into Your Home or Building?

The steps you take right after the incident can make or break your ability to recover compensation. Here is what we recommend.

Get Medical Attention Immediately

Even if you feel fine, get checked out. Adrenaline can mask serious injuries like internal bleeding, concussions, and spinal damage. A prompt medical evaluation also creates a record linking your injuries to the crash.

Call 911 and File a Police Report

Law enforcement should respond and file an official report documenting what happened. This report becomes an important piece of evidence in any claim.

Document Everything

If you are able, take photos and video of the damage to the building, the vehicle, the surrounding area, and your injuries. Collect contact information from the driver, witnesses, and responding officers.

Do Not Give Recorded Statements to Insurance Companies

Insurance adjusters are not on your side. They will look for any opening to minimize or deny your claim. Do not provide recorded statements without first talking to a lawyer.

Talk to a lawyer before you speak to an insurance adjuster. Schedule a free consultation with Varghese Summersett today.

Contact a Personal Injury Attorney

These cases can involve multiple liable parties, overlapping insurance policies, government immunity issues, and complex questions of foreseeability and causation. An experienced personal injury attorney can identify all responsible parties, preserve critical evidence, and build the strongest case on your behalf.

How Do Insurance Policies Apply in These Cases?

Vehicle-into-building cases often involve multiple insurance policies. Understanding which ones apply is essential to maximizing your recovery.

The driver’s auto liability insurance should cover injuries and damage caused by the driver’s negligence. However, many drivers carry only Texas minimum coverage ($30,000 per person/$60,000 per accident), which may be woefully inadequate for the damage caused. Commercial auto policies may apply if the driver was working, and these policies typically carry much higher limits.

The property owner’s commercial general liability insurance may apply if the owner shares fault for failing to protect occupants. Your own homeowner’s or renter’s insurance may cover property damage and temporary living expenses. And uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage on your own auto policy may provide additional protection if the at-fault driver lacks adequate insurance.

Sorting through these layers of coverage is exactly the type of work an experienced personal injury attorney handles every day.

Find out what your case is worth. Call Varghese Summersett for a free consultation.

What to Expect From Varghese Summersett

At Varghese Summersett, we approach every personal injury case with the preparation and intensity of a team that is ready to go to trial. We don’t file claims and hope for the best. We investigate thoroughly, identify every liable party, retain the right experts, and fight for every dollar our clients deserve.

Our personal injury team has recovered millions of dollars for injured Texans. We handle cases on a contingency fee basis, which means you pay nothing upfront and owe us nothing unless we win your case. With more than 70 legal professionals across four Texas offices, we have the resources and the tenacity to take on insurance companies, corporations, and government entities.

If a vehicle crashed into your home, your workplace, or a building you were in, you deserve a legal team that understands the complexity of these cases.

Award-Winning Legal Excellence

Ask Varghese Summersett AI

Versus-AI has been taught everything from our website and is here to help you find the answers you need. Ask Versus-AI anything.

Watch: 3 Things You Should Never Say After a Crash

Frequently Asked Questions About Vehicle-Into-Building Crashes

Can I sue the property owner if a car crashed into a building I was in?

Yes, in some cases. If the property owner knew or should have known the building was vulnerable to vehicle strikes (due to prior incidents, location near a high-speed road, or proximity to a dangerous intersection) and failed to install protective barriers like bollards or guardrails, they may share liability for your injuries under Texas premises liability law.

What if the driver who hit the building was working at the time?

If the driver was acting in the course and scope of their employment, their employer may be vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. This is significant because commercial insurance policies typically carry much higher coverage limits than personal auto policies, which means more resources to compensate you.

How long do I have to file a lawsuit after a vehicle crashes into my home in Texas?

Under the Texas statute of limitations, you generally have two years from the date of the incident to file a personal injury lawsuit. Claims against government entities have shorter deadlines and strict notice requirements under the Texas Tort Claims Act. Contact an attorney as soon as possible to protect your rights.

What if the at-fault driver doesn’t have enough insurance to cover my damages?

Multiple insurance policies may apply, including the driver’s personal coverage, a commercial policy if the driver was working, the property owner’s liability insurance, and your own uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage. An attorney can identify all available sources of compensation and pursue claims against every responsible party.

Can I recover damages if I was partially at fault?

Texas follows a modified comparative fault rule. You can still recover damages as long as you are no more than 50 percent at fault. Your award will be reduced by your percentage of responsibility. If you are found more than 50 percent at fault, you cannot recover anything.

Texas Personal Injury Practice Areas

Our Texas injury lawyers fight for maximum compensation

Main Pages

Auto Accidents

Other Vehicle Accidents

Accident Types

Catastrophic Injuries

Catastrophic Injuries
Traumatic Brain Injuries
Spinal Cord Injuries

Burn Injuries held within two working days of detention. During this hearing, a judge will decide whether to release your child or keep them detained while the case moves forward. Understanding the process, your child’s rights, and how to prepare can make a real difference in the outcome.

The Texas juvenile justice system is governed by Title 3 of the Texas Family Code. Unlike the adult criminal system, the juvenile system focuses on rehabilitation while still holding young people accountable. As a parent, you are not just a bystander. Texas law requires your active participation in these proceedings.

At Varghese Summersett, our juvenile defense team includes two attorneys who are Board Certified in Juvenile Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization: Lisa Herrick, a former Tarrant County prosecutor who tried more than 80 jury trials before becoming a defense attorney, and Mike Hanson, a military veteran and former prosecutor who leads our Houston office. With more than 70 team members across four Texas offices and a track record of more than 1,600 dismissals and 800 charge reductions, we bring the experience and resources families need during this stressful time.

You've Seen Us On

How Does the Juvenile Court System Differ from Adult Court in Texas?

The juvenile system operates with different goals, terminology, and procedures than the adult criminal justice system. Knowing the language and framework will help you follow proceedings and communicate with your child’s attorney.

Key Terminology Differences

Adult System Term	Juvenile System Term	What It Means
Crime/Offense	Delinquent Conduct or CINS	The act the child is accused of committing
Arrest	Taking Into Custody	When a child is detained by law enforcement
Indictment	Petition	The formal charging document filed by the prosecutor
Defendant	Respondent	The child accused of the offense
Trial	Adjudication Hearing	The proceeding to determine if the child committed the conduct
Conviction	Finding/Adjudication	When the court finds the child engaged in the conduct
Sentencing	Disposition Hearing	When the court determines the consequences
Prison	Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD)	The state facility for committed youth

Age and Jurisdiction

Texas juvenile courts have jurisdiction over children who are at least 10 years old but younger than 17 at the time of the alleged offense. This is younger than the threshold in most states. Once a child turns 17, they are treated as an adult in the Texas criminal justice system.

Juvenile courts retain jurisdiction over a case until the respondent turns 18 (or 19 in certain felony cases). For determinate sentence cases involving the most serious offenses, jurisdiction may extend until the person turns 40.

Are Juvenile Court Records Public?

Juvenile proceedings are generally closed to the public. Juvenile records are also subject to sealing and, in some cases, automatic restricted access. These protections reflect the understanding that children are still developing and should not carry the weight of a public record for mistakes made during adolescence.

There are exceptions. If a child is 14 or older and is accused of certain serious felonies, proceedings and records may be more accessible. An attorney can explain whether your child’s case falls under any exception.

What Happens Before the First Court Appearance?

Taking Into Custody

When a child is suspected of delinquent conduct, law enforcement may take the child into custody. This is the juvenile equivalent of an arrest, but it carries different rules. The officer must promptly notify the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian.

Under Section 52.01 of the Texas Family Code, the officer may release the child to a parent, bring the child to a juvenile processing office, transport the child to a medical facility if needed, or bring the child to a juvenile detention facility.

What Role Does the Juvenile Probation Department Play?

Before any case reaches a courtroom, the juvenile probation department plays a screening role. An intake officer reviews the case and decides how to proceed. The probation department has significant discretion at this stage.

Some cases are resolved resolved through a First Offender Program, deferred prosecution, or supervisory caution. If the alleged offense is serious, the child has prior referrals, or other factors warrant formal proceedings, the officer will refer the case to the prosecutor for the filing of a petition.

Not every juvenile referral results in a court appearance. First-time offenders accused of minor offenses may have the matter resolved without ever going to court.

How Is the Detention Decision Made?

If a child is not released after being taken into custody, they may be held in a juvenile detention facility. Under Texas law, a detention hearing must be held no later than the second working day after the child is placed in detention. This hearing is often the child’s first appearance before a juvenile court judge.

The court considers several factors: whether there is probable cause to believe the child engaged in the alleged conduct, whether continued detention is needed to protect the child or the community, whether the child is a flight risk, and whether the child has a suitable home environment.

What Happens at the First Court Appearance?

The Detention Hearing

If your child has been detained, the detention hearing is the first formal proceeding. It typically happens within 48 hours of detention, excluding weekends and holidays.

The judge will consider whether probable cause exists and whether continued detention is warranted. The standard at this stage is not the same as trial. The state does not need to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the court looks at whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the child engaged in the conduct.

Your child’s attorney can argue for release by showing strong family ties, school enrollment, no danger to the community, and a suitable home environment. The attorney may also propose conditions of release such as electronic monitoring, curfew requirements, or regular check-ins with the probation department.

What If My Child Was Not Detained?

If your child was released after being taken into custody, the first court appearance comes later. After the prosecutor files a petition alleging delinquent conduct, the court will set an initial hearing date. You and your child will receive a summons to appear.

At this hearing, the court ensures both you and your child understand the allegations, that your child has legal representation, and that everyone knows their rights. The judge may also set future court dates and determine whether conditions should be imposed while the case is pending.

What Is the Courtroom Like?

Texas juvenile courtrooms are less formal than adult courtrooms, but they are still serious judicial proceedings. The judge sits at the bench, and the courtroom includes a prosecutor, your child’s defense attorney, a juvenile probation officer, and a court clerk. You will typically be seated in the gallery or at the counsel table with your child and attorney.

Juvenile cases in Texas are heard by a judge, not a jury, by default. However, your child does have the right to request a jury trial for the adjudication hearing under certain circumstances.

What Must the State Prove in a Juvenile Case?

The juvenile system uses the same constitutional standards of proof as the adult system, even though the terminology and proceedings differ.

To obtain an adjudication (the juvenile equivalent of a conviction), the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child engaged in delinquent conduct. This means the prosecution must establish every element of the offense alleged in the petition. The child, as the respondent, has no burden to prove innocence.

The specific elements depend on the offense charged. For example, if the petition alleges assault under Texas Penal Code Section 22.01, the State must prove the respondent intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury to another person. If the petition alleges a drug offense, the State must prove the elements under the relevant section of the Texas Health and Safety Code.

A defense attorney challenges the State’s case by attacking specific elements. If the prosecution cannot prove even one element beyond a reasonable doubt, the case should result in a “not true” finding (the juvenile equivalent of a not guilty verdict). Common defense strategies include challenging the identification of the respondent, questioning the legality of the search or seizure, disputing intent, and presenting alibi or self-defense evidence.

Talk to a Lawyer Before You Speak to Police. If your child has been accused of delinquent conduct, the decisions made early in the case often have the greatest impact. Call Varghese Summersett at (817) 203-2220 for a free consultation.

What Are My Child’s Rights in Juvenile Court?

Children in Texas juvenile proceedings are entitled to many of the same constitutional protections as adults in criminal court.

Right to an Attorney

Your child has the right to be represented by an attorney at every stage. If you cannot afford one, the court will appoint one. Under Section 51.10 of the Family Code, a child may not waive the right to counsel unless the waiver is made in writing, in the presence of the parent, and after both the child and parent have consulted with an attorney.

Hiring an experienced juvenile defense attorney early can influence whether the case proceeds to court, whether your child is released from detention, and how the case is ultimately resolved.

Right to Remain Silent

Your child has the right to remain silent and cannot be forced to make statements that could be used against them. As a parent, one of the most valuable things you can do is advise your child to exercise this right. Well-meaning children often want to explain themselves to police, but those statements can be taken out of context. The safest approach is to decline to answer questions until an attorney is present.

Right to Confront Witnesses

Your child has the right to cross-examine witnesses who testify against them and to present their own witnesses and evidence. This ensures the State’s case is tested through the adversarial process.

Protection Against Self-Incrimination

Texas provides extra protections for juveniles regarding statements to law enforcement. Under Section 51.095 of the Family Code, a child’s statement during custodial interrogation is generally inadmissible unless it was recorded, the child was warned of their rights, and the child knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights. These protections are stronger than those in the adult system because children are more vulnerable to coercive interrogation.

Right to a Timely Hearing

If your child is detained, the adjudication hearing must generally take place within 10 working days. If the child is not detained, the timeline is more flexible, but the case should still proceed without unnecessary delay.

What Is My Role as a Parent in Juvenile Court?

Your involvement is not just welcome. It is required. Texas law mandates parental participation, and the court views your engagement as a key factor in your child’s rehabilitation.

Mandatory Attendance

Under Section 51.115 of the Texas Family Code, a court may order you to attend hearings. Failure to attend when ordered can result in contempt, which could mean fines or, in extreme situations, arrest. Your presence also signals to the judge that your child has a supportive home.

How to Support Your Child

Stay calm and reassuring. Your child takes emotional cues from you. If you are panicked or angry, their anxiety will increase.

Listen without judgment. Let your child express their feelings about the situation while being honest about its seriousness.

Follow your attorney’s guidance. They have experience with the juvenile system and will provide advice specific to your child’s case.

Prepare your child for court. Explain what will happen in age-appropriate terms. Let them know who will be in the courtroom and what behavior is expected. Have them dress neatly and conservatively.

Arrive early. Give yourself time to find the courtroom, meet with your attorney, and help your child settle in.

What Should You Avoid?

Do not discuss case details with anyone other than your attorney. Do not allow your child to speak with law enforcement or prosecutors without their attorney present. Do not coach your child on what to say in court. Do not display anger or frustration in the courtroom. Do not post about the case on social media.

What Are the Possible Outcomes of the First Hearing?

Release from Detention with Conditions

If the first appearance is a detention hearing, the best outcome is release. The judge may order your child released to your custody with conditions such as electronic monitoring, a curfew, regular reporting to the probation department, school attendance requirements, or drug testing. Complying with these conditions is essential, as a violation could result in your child being returned to detention.

Continued Detention

In some cases, the judge may decide continued detention is necessary. This is more likely if the alleged offense is serious, the child has prior referrals, there are concerns about safety at home, or the child is considered a flight risk.

Setting Future Court Dates

Whether or not your child is detained, the first hearing will typically result in future court dates being scheduled. These may include pretrial hearings, status conferences, and ultimately the adjudication hearing.

Negotiated Resolutions

Many juvenile cases are resolved through negotiation. Your attorney and the prosecutor may discuss deferred prosecution, a plea to a lesser offense, or a disposition agreement that avoids the most serious consequences. Having an experienced attorney can make a significant difference in these negotiations.

What Are the Potential Dispositions in a Juvenile Case?

While the disposition hearing comes after adjudication, understanding the range of possible outcomes early can inform your family’s defense strategy.

Probation

Probation is the most common disposition. The child remains in the community under supervision with conditions that may include community service, counseling, substance abuse treatment, restitution, academic requirements, and regular meetings with a probation officer.

Placement Outside the Home

For more serious offenses or when the home environment is a concern, the court may order placement in a residential treatment facility, boot camp, or foster care setting. This is typically reserved for cases where community-based probation has failed or the offense is too serious for standard probation.

Commitment to TJJD

The most serious disposition is commitment to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD). This is the juvenile equivalent of prison and is reserved for the most serious offenses or repeat offenders. The court must find that all other options have been considered and found inadequate.

Determinate Sentences

For certain serious offenses listed in Section 53.045 of the Family Code, the State may seek a determinate sentence of up to 40 years, with the possibility of transfer to adult prison when the child turns 19. These are the most serious cases handled in juvenile court.

What Is Certification to Adult Court?

One of the most serious possibilities is certification (discretionary transfer) to adult court. If your child is 14 or older and is accused of a felony, the State may petition to transfer the case.

Certification carries life-altering consequences. If certified, your child faces adult criminal penalties and a permanent criminal record. The certification hearing examines the seriousness of the offense, the child’s background, the likelihood of rehabilitation within the juvenile system, and the adequacy of the juvenile system’s resources.

If certification is a possibility in your child’s case, retaining an experienced juvenile defense attorney immediately is critical. These hearings require expert witness testimony and a thorough presentation of the child’s rehabilitation potential.

A Case Result: How Aggressive Defense Changed the Outcome

In a recent Tarrant County case, Lisa Herrick represented a young person facing Aggravated Robbery charges, a first-degree felony that can carry up to life in prison for adults. Additional Evading Arrest charges compounded the situation. Through strategic advocacy, Herrick secured 18 months of probation, and the Evading Arrest charge was dismissed entirely.

This result reflects the kind of focused, aggressive defense that can redirect a young person’s life. Rather than years behind bars, this client received a rehabilitative outcome that kept them in the community.

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Protect Your Rights and Your Record. Every juvenile case is unique, and early attorney involvement often shapes the final outcome. Call (817) 203-2220 for a free consultation with our juvenile defense team.

What to Expect From Varghese Summersett

When your child faces juvenile charges in Texas, you need a firm that treats your family’s case with the seriousness it deserves. Varghese Summersett brings two Board Certified Juvenile Law attorneys, more than 70 team members, and four offices across Texas to every case.

From the first phone call, our team works to understand the full picture. We attend every hearing, communicate with the juvenile probation department, investigate the allegations, and develop a defense strategy tailored to your child’s circumstances. Whether the goal is dismissal, deferred prosecution, or the best possible disposition, we prepare every case as if it is going to trial.

Our firm has secured more than 1,600 dismissals and 800 charge reductions across all practice areas. We bring that same level of dedication to juvenile defense, because what happens in your child’s case today can shape the rest of their life.

Award-Winning Legal Excellence

Ask Varghese Summersett AI

Versus-AI has been taught everything from our website and is here to help you find the answers you need. Ask Versus-AI anything.

Watch: Inside Juvenile Detention in Texas

Frequently Asked Questions About Your Child’s First Court Appearance

Will my child have a criminal record after juvenile court?

Juvenile records in Texas are not the same as adult criminal records. In many cases, juvenile records can be sealed or may receive automatic restricted access. However, certain serious offenses may result in records that are harder to seal. An attorney can explain the specific implications for your child’s situation.

Can I be held financially responsible for my child’s case?

Yes. Texas law allows the juvenile court to hold parents responsible for restitution to victims, court costs, and fees for court-ordered services. In some cases, the court may also order parents to participate in counseling or parenting programs.

What if my child is accused of a school-related offense?

School-related offenses can trigger both the juvenile justice system and the school’s disciplinary process. Your child may face legal consequences and school-based consequences like suspension or expulsion simultaneously. It is important to address both tracks at the same time.

Can my child’s case be transferred to adult court?

If your child is 14 or older and accused of a felony, the State can petition for certification to adult court. This is a discretionary decision the juvenile court makes after a hearing. The stakes are extremely high, making experienced legal representation essential.

How long does the juvenile court process take?

The timeline depends on the complexity and severity of the case. Simple matters may be resolved in a few weeks. Complex felony cases could take several months. If your child is detained, the adjudication hearing must take place within 10 working days.

Texas Juvenile Defense

Experienced juvenile defense attorneys across Texas

Locations

Fort Worth Juvenile D

Suing Lyft or Uber for Sexual Assault is Harder (But Not Impossible) in Texas

Varghese Summersett — Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:35:02 Z

Suing Lyft or Uber for sexual assault in Texas is harder than in most other states. Texas law classifies rideshare drivers as independent contractors and explicitly states that Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) are not common carriers. These two legal shields create barriers that require survivors to prove “gross negligence” by clear and convincing evidence rather than ordinary negligence.

This does not mean lawsuits are impossible. Texas survivors can still pursue claims against Uber and Lyft, but the path requires a focused legal strategy targeting the company’s direct failures rather than simply holding them responsible for their driver’s actions.

Why Is Suing Uber or Lyft for Sexual Assault So Difficult in Texas?

Texas has created one of the most protective legal environments for rideshare companies in the country. Through a combination of state statutes and court rulings, survivors face unique obstacles that don’t exist in states like California or Illinois.

Three major legal barriers work together to shield Uber and Lyft from liability:

Independent Contractor Status: Under Texas Occupations Code Chapter 2402, rideshare drivers are classified as independent contractors “for all purposes” if the company meets four specific criteria. This classification severs the traditional employer-employee relationship that would make companies responsible for their workers’ actions. In the 2025 Acosta v. Uber case, a Texas appeals court ruled this statute effectively blocks vicarious liability claims against Uber for driver conduct.

No Common Carrier Duty: In California, courts have ruled that Uber operates as a “common carrier” similar to airlines or trains, imposing the highest duty of care to protect passengers. Texas law explicitly rejects this theory. Texas Occupations Code § 2402.002 states that TNCs “are not common carriers, contract carriers, or motor carriers.” This closes the door to non-delegable duty claims that have succeeded in other jurisdictions.

The 2023 Gross Negligence Barrier: House Bill 1745, which took effect September 1, 2023, added Chapter 150E to the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. This law prevents TNCs from being held vicariously liable unless the plaintiff proves gross negligence by clear and convincing evidence and shows the company failed to meet its background check obligations.

What Is the “Gross Negligence” Standard in Texas?

Gross negligence is a much higher bar than ordinary negligence. To succeed, a survivor must prove two things:

Objective Risk: The company’s action or inaction involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of potential harm.

Subjective Awareness: Uber or Lyft had actual, subjective knowledge of the risk but proceeded anyway with conscious indifference to the safety or welfare of passengers.

This standard means it’s not enough to argue that Uber “should have known” a driver was dangerous. Survivors must prove the company actually knew about specific risks (perhaps through prior assault reports about that driver) and deliberately chose to keep them on the platform. This evidence can be difficult to obtain without extensive discovery.

What Legal Theories Can Succeed in Texas?

Despite these obstacles, Texas law does not grant rideshare companies total immunity. The strongest claims focus on the company’s own failures rather than the driver’s actions.

Negligent Hiring and Retention: This is often the most viable theory in Texas. If Uber or Lyft failed to conduct the background check required by state law or ignored specific “red flags” (such as a prior assault complaint against the driver), they can be held directly liable. The key is proving the company knew or should have known the driver posed a foreseeable danger.

Ratification: Texas law allows claims that a company “ratified” harmful conduct. This requires proving Uber or Lyft knew about a driver’s specific misconduct and chose to retain them or failed to take action. Simply keeping a driver after vague complaints is usually insufficient. The company must have shown an intentional act confirming the harmful behavior.

Fraud or Misrepresentation: Some survivors have pursued claims that Uber’s marketing (such as “Safe Ride Home” campaigns) constituted false representations they relied on when choosing to use the service. These claims require proving specific reliance on specific safety statements.

Product Liability: This theory argues the rideshare app itself is a defective product due to missing safety features like biometric identity verification. Texas courts apply a “predominant purpose” test. If the court views the app primarily as a service rather than a product, these claims may fail.

If you’ve been sexually assaulted during a rideshare, an experienced rideshare accident attorney can evaluate which theories apply to your situation. Schedule a free consultation to discuss your options.

How Does the Federal MDL Affect Texas Cases?

Most rideshare sexual assault cases against Uber are currently consolidated in Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) No. 3084 before Judge Charles Breyer in the Northern District of California.

Why Cases Move to Federal Court: Because Uber is incorporated in Delaware with headquarters in California, cases involving Texas plaintiffs seeking more than $75,000 can be removed to federal court based on diversity of citizenship.

MDL Rulings for Texas Plaintiffs: In August 2024, Judge Breyer issued mixed rulings. He dismissed common carrier and strict product liability claims for Texas plaintiffs specifically because of Texas statutes. However, he denied the motion to dismiss gross negligence and punitive damages claims. He ruled that allegations of Uber’s systemic failure to address sexual assault could plausibly meet Texas’s gross negligence standard at the pleading stage.

This makes federal court potentially more favorable for surviving initial dismissal than Texas state court, where the Acosta precedent strongly reinforces the independent contractor shield.

What Damages Can Sexual Assault Survivors Recover?

Texas personal injury law allows survivors to seek compensation for both economic and non-economic losses:

Economic Damages: Medical expenses (physical and mental health treatment), counseling and therapy costs, lost wages and lost earning capacity, and related out-of-pocket expenses.

Non-Economic Damages: Pain and suffering, emotional distress, anxiety, depression, PTSD, loss of enjoyment of life, and damage to personal relationships.

Punitive Damages: If gross negligence is proven, Texas law permits exemplary (punitive) damages designed to punish the company and deter future misconduct. These can be substantial in cases involving patterns of corporate negligence.

What Is the Deadline to File a Rideshare Sexual Assault Lawsuit in Texas?

Texas has a two-year statute of limitations for most personal injury claims, including sexual assault. This means survivors generally have two years from the date of the assault to file a lawsuit. However, the civil statute of limitations for sexual abuse cases can be more complex depending on when the assault was discovered and other factors.

Missing this deadline typically bars recovery entirely. Given the complexity of rideshare litigation and the potential for cases to be consolidated in federal MDL proceedings, early consultation with an attorney is essential.

Watch: Filing Deadlines for Sexual Abuse Claims in Texas

Quick Reference: Liability Theories in Texas

Liability Theory	Status in Texas	Key Challenge
Vicarious Liability	Blocked	Drivers are independent contractors under Tex. Occ. Code § 2402.114
Common Carrier Liability	Blocked	Statute says TNCs are not common carriers
Negligent Hiring/Retention	Viable	Must prove company knew of or ignored specific red flags
Gross Negligence	Viable (Difficult)	Must prove actual awareness and conscious indifference
Fraud/Misrepresentation	Viable (Narrow)	Must prove specific reliance on specific safety claims

Why You Need an Experienced Attorney for Rideshare Assault Cases

Rideshare sexual assault cases in Texas require a law firm with the resources and experience to take on large corporations. At Varghese Summersett, our team includes more than 70 legal professionals across four Texas offices. Our attorneys have decades of combined experience handling complex personal injury cases against well-funded corporate defendants.

These cases require extensive discovery to uncover evidence of prior complaints, internal safety decisions, and patterns of corporate neglect. We have the resources to pursue the evidence needed to prove gross negligence and hold rideshare companies accountable.

If you or a loved one has been sexually assaulted during an Uber or Lyft ride, you deserve a legal team that understands the unique challenges of Texas law. Find out what your case is worth. Schedule a free consultation today.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue Uber or Lyft if I was sexually assaulted by a driver in Texas?

Yes, but Texas law makes these cases more difficult than in other states. You can pursue claims based on negligent hiring, gross negligence, or fraud. An attorney can evaluate which theories apply to your specific situation.

Why can’t I just hold Uber responsible for what their driver did?

Texas law classifies rideshare drivers as independent contractors, not employees. This means companies generally aren’t automatically responsible for driver actions. Your case must focus on the company’s own failures, such as inadequate background checks or ignoring prior complaints.

What evidence do I need to prove gross negligence against Uber or Lyft?

You must show the company had actual knowledge of an extreme risk to passenger safety and proceeded with conscious indifference. Evidence might include prior assault reports about the same driver, internal safety studies the company ignored, or patterns of inadequate screening.

How long do I have to file a lawsuit after a rideshare sexual assault in Texas?

Texas generally has a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including sexual assault. The deadline can vary based on specific circumstances, so consult an attorney as soon as possible to protect your rights.

Should I file my case in state court or federal court?

This depends on your specific situation. Federal MDL proceedings have been more favorable for Texas plaintiffs at the pleading stage. An experienced rideshare assault attorney can advise you on the best venue for your case.

Texas Personal Injury Practice Areas

Our Texas injury lawyers fight for maximum compensation

Main Pages

Auto Accidents

Other Vehicle Accidents

Accident Types

Catastrophic Injuries

Premises Liability

Workplace & Industrial

Wrongful Death

Other Practice Areas

Locations

Injured in Texas? Get a free consultation.

(817) 203-2220

Is It Legal to Put a GPS Tracker on Someone Elses Car in Texas?

Varghese Summersett — Sat, 24 Jan 2026 09:28:21 Z

No. In most cases, it is not legal to put a GPS tracker on someone else’s car in Texas. Under Texas Penal Code § 16.06, knowingly installing a tracking device on a motor vehicle owned or leased by another person without their consent is a Class A misdemeanor. This charge can result in up to one year in county jail and fines up to $4,000.

If you’re caught tracking your spouse’s vehicle during a divorce or custody dispute, the consequences extend far beyond criminal charges. What you thought might help your case could actually devastate it.

What the Law Actually Says

Texas Penal Code § 16.06 makes it a criminal offense to knowingly install an electronic or mechanical tracking device on a vehicle that you do not own or lease. The statute covers GPS units, Bluetooth trackers like AirTags, and any device capable of transmitting location data.

The offense applies when you install a tracker on someone else’s vehicle without their effective consent. Even if you share a home or a marriage with the vehicle’s owner, installing a hidden tracker on their car can still violate this law.

A Class A misdemeanor is the most serious type of misdemeanor in Texas. A conviction means:

Up to 1 year in the Tarrant County Jail or other county jail
A fine up to $4,000
A permanent criminal record
Potential restraining orders and protective orders

What About Jointly Owned Vehicles?

The law criminalizes installing a tracker on a vehicle “owned or leased by another person.” This creates ambiguity when the vehicle is jointly titled or purchased with community property funds during marriage.

Many Texas prosecutors have taken the position that tracking a vehicle primarily used by your spouse, particularly during a separation, can still result in charges. This is especially true when temporary court orders grant one spouse exclusive use of a specific vehicle. Those orders effectively eliminate any claim of “effective consent.” At least one federal court addressing the issue of jointly owned vehicles in the context of GPS trackers disagreed that an arrest for one spouse installing a GPS tracker on a jointly owned vehicle would give rise to a civil suit for malicious prosecution.

Even without explicit court orders, law enforcement and district attorneys frequently pursue charges against spouses who install trackers on the “family car” when the other spouse was the primary driver. The argument is straightforward: if you’re hiding a tracker, you know the other person wouldn’t consent to it.

Defenses to Unlawful Installation of a Tracking Device

Texas law provides several affirmative defenses that can defeat this charge:

Consent. If the vehicle’s owner or lessee gave you permission to install the device, you have a complete defense. This consent should be documented in writing whenever possible.

Law enforcement cooperation. Installing a tracker while assisting law enforcement under proper authorization is a valid defense.

Court order. If a court specifically authorized the tracking, the installation is lawful.

Owner status. If you are the sole owner of the vehicle (title in your name only), tracking your own property is not a crime. However, this defense may not apply to vehicles purchased during marriage, which are presumed to be community property regardless of whose name appears on the title.

The defense attorneys at Varghese Summersett have handled cases where clients genuinely believed they had a right to monitor a jointly owned vehicle. Understanding the nuances of ownership, consent, and community property law is essential to building a viable defense. If you’re facing these charges, talk to a Fort Worth stalking and surveillance defense lawyer who can evaluate the specific facts of your situation.

Typical Bond Amounts for Tracking Device Charges

If you’re arrested for unlawful installation of a tracking device in Tarrant County, you should expect to post bond before being released from the Tarrant County Jail or Lon Evans Corrections Center.

Based on our analysis of recent Tarrant County bond data, the most common bond set for violations of Texas Penal Code § 16.06 is $1,000. The average bond for this offense runs slightly higher, around $2,000, because some cases involve additional charges or aggravating circumstances.

Bond amounts can increase significantly when tracking device charges are filed alongside stalking, violation of a protective order, or harassment charges. In cases involving documented patterns of surveillance or intimidation, bonds can reach $5,000 or more.

When Tracking Becomes Stalking

Installing a single tracking device is a Class A misdemeanor. But repeated tracking, combined with other conduct that causes fear or harassment, can elevate the offense to stalking under Texas Penal Code § 42.072.

Stalking is a third-degree felony punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison. It becomes a second-degree felony (2-20 years) if you have a prior stalking conviction or if you violated a court order while engaging in the conduct.

Prosecutors often charge both offenses together when they believe the tracking was part of a broader pattern. In Tarrant County, bond amounts for stalking charges average around $28,000, reflecting the serious nature of these allegations.

Our attorneys recently represented a client charged with stalking in Tarrant County. The case involved allegations of surveillance and unwanted contact. Through careful investigation and strategic advocacy, we secured a resolution of 3-year deferred adjudication, which gives our client the opportunity to have the charge dismissed upon successful completion of probation.

The Family Law Consequences Can Be Worse Than Criminal Charges

Here’s what many people don’t realize until it’s too late: even if the criminal case results in a dismissal or light sentence, the family court consequences can be devastating.

Impact on Your Divorce Case

Texas is a no-fault divorce state. You don’t need to prove adultery to get divorced. But evidence of adultery can still affect property division and, in some cases, spousal maintenance.

The problem is that evidence obtained through illegal tracking is immediately suspect. Your spouse’s attorney will attack it on multiple grounds: the criminality of how it was obtained, the invasion of privacy, and any violations of standing orders that prohibited monitoring the other spouse.

Even if a judge allows some of the evidence, the bigger picture often works against the tracking spouse. You may have proof that your spouse visited someone’s apartment, but now you’ve also given them proof that you committed a crime to get it. Judges frequently view the tracking spouse as the greater wrongdoer.

Impact on Child Custody

Custody disputes turn on what’s in the “best interest of the child.” Texas courts evaluate factors like each parent’s emotional stability, ability to co-parent, and any history of family violence.

Covert GPS tracking of the other parent can be characterized as stalking, harassment, or controlling behavior. This cuts against you on multiple custody factors. Your ex’s attorney will argue that you’ve demonstrated:

Poor judgment
Inability to respect boundaries
Controlling or obsessive behavior
Potential for escalation

Several Texas family courts have used unauthorized tracking as grounds for restricting the tracking parent’s access to the children. Outcomes have included supervised visitation, restricted geographic radius, and custody arrangements favoring the non-tracking parent.

If you’re going through a divorce and concerned about your spouse’s behavior, there are legitimate ways to address those concerns through the family court system. You should explore those options with a family law attorney before taking any action that could backfire. Learn more about what to do if you suspect your spouse is cheating.

Protective Orders and Restraining Orders

Texas courts have become increasingly sensitive to surveillance and tracking in the domestic context. Recent legislative updates treat unauthorized GPS tracking as a form of family violence when directed at a current or former intimate partner, particularly when it’s part of a pattern of stalking or harassment.

If your spouse discovers a hidden tracker on their car, they can petition for a protective order citing both the Penal Code § 16.06 violation and the broader pattern of conduct. Protective orders can restrict your contact with your spouse and children, remove you from your home, and create additional criminal exposure if you violate them.

A violation of a protective order is a Class A misdemeanor for a first offense, but it becomes a third-degree felony if you have prior violations or commit the offense while on bond for a family violence offense.

What About Tracking Your Own Child?

The analysis changes when you’re tracking your minor child’s vehicle rather than your spouse’s. Texas law recognizes parental rights to monitor and supervise children, and most courts would not find a Penal Code § 16.06 violation when a parent tracks a car driven by their underage child.

However, complications arise when:

The vehicle is owned by the other parent
A custody order restricts your ability to monitor the child
The tracking is primarily aimed at monitoring the other parent’s activities

If you’re considering tracking a vehicle used by your child, review any existing custody orders carefully and discuss the situation with an attorney first.

The Criminal Court Process for Tracking Device Charges

If you’re arrested for unlawful installation of a tracking device in Texas, here’s what to expect:

Arrest and booking. You’ll be taken to the county jail for processing. In Tarrant County, this typically means the Lon Evans Corrections Center or the Green Bay facility.

Bond and release. For a Class A misdemeanor, you’ll generally be able to post bond and be released within hours. As noted above, bonds typically range from $1,000 to $2,000 for standalone tracking charges.

Arraignment. You’ll appear in court to receive formal notice of the charges and enter an initial plea. In Tarrant County, misdemeanor cases are handled in the County Criminal Courts.

Pretrial proceedings. Your attorney will review the evidence, file any necessary motions, and begin negotiations with the prosecutor. Key issues often include whether consent existed, who actually owned the vehicle, and whether the tracking was part of a broader pattern.

Resolution. Cases may resolve through dismissal, plea agreement, or trial. The best outcomes often involve pretrial diversion programs or deferred adjudication, which can result in the charge being dismissed from your record.

Our attorneys have successfully defended clients facing tracking device charges, securing dismissals and reductions that protect their criminal records and their rights in related family law proceedings.

What to Expect From Varghese Summersett

Varghese Summersett is one of Texas’s premier criminal defense and family law firms, with offices in Fort Worth, Dallas, Houston, and Southlake. Our team of more than 70 legal professionals includes former prosecutors, board-certified specialists, and attorneys with decades of trial experience.

We’ve secured more than 1,600 dismissals and 800 charge reductions for our clients. Our approach combines aggressive legal advocacy with a clear understanding of how criminal and family law cases intersect.

When you’re facing charges that could affect both your freedom and your family, you need attorneys who understand both sides of the courthouse. We coordinate defense strategies across criminal and family courts to protect all your interests, not just the case in front of one judge.

If you’ve been charged with unlawful installation of a tracking device, stalking, or related offenses, or if you’re concerned about how surveillance activities might affect your divorce or custody case, call us for a free consultation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I put a GPS tracker on my spouse’s car if I suspect they’re cheating?

Generally, no. If the vehicle is solely titled in your spouse’s name, installing a tracker without their consent violates Texas Penal Code § 16.06. Even on jointly titled vehicles, prosecutors have pursued charges when one spouse secretly tracks the other, particularly during separation or when court orders grant exclusive vehicle use. The potential benefit of catching evidence of adultery is typically far outweighed by the criminal exposure and damage to your custody case.

What’s the difference between a tracking device charge and a stalking charge?

Unlawful installation of a tracking device is a Class A misdemeanor covering the single act of installing surveillance equipment. Stalking under Texas Penal Code § 42.072 is a felony that requires a pattern of conduct causing the victim to fear for their safety or the safety of a family member. If prosecutors believe your tracking was part of a broader pattern of surveillance, harassment, or intimidation, they may charge both offenses. Stalking carries significantly higher penalties, including potential prison time.

Will my criminal case affect my divorce or custody case?

Yes, almost certainly. Evidence of criminal conduct involving surveillance, tracking, or harassment will be used against you in family court. Texas judges consider factors like emotional stability, respect for boundaries, and history of family violence when making custody determinations. A tracking device charge, even if it results in dismissal, can significantly harm your position in a custody dispute.

Can I track my teenager’s car?

Parents generally have the right to monitor their minor children, including tracking vehicles they drive. However, complications arise if the vehicle is owned by the other parent, if custody orders restrict monitoring, or if the tracking is really aimed at the other parent rather than the child. Review your custody order and consult an attorney before installing any tracking device.

What if I find a tracker on my car?

Document the device with photographs and preserve it as evidence. You may want to file a police report, particularly if you’re in a divorce or custody dispute. Depending on your circumstances, you may be able to seek a protective order against the person who installed it. Consult with both a criminal defense attorney and a family law attorney to understand your options.

Texas Assault Defense

Experienced assault defense attorneys across Texas

Dallas

Fort Worth

Other Locations

Statewide Resources

Facing assault charges in Texas? Get a free consultation.

(817) 203-2220

Protect Your Rights and Your Record

A tracking device charge can seem minor on paper, but its consequences ripple through every aspect of your life. Criminal penalties, protective orders, and family court battles can compound quickly. The best defense starts early, before statements are made, before evidence is lost, and before the family court forms opinions based on incomplete information.

Varghese Summersett’s criminal defense and family law teams work together to protect clients facing these interconnected issues. We understand how prosecutors build these cases, how family courts react to surveillance allegations, and how to position you for the best possible outcome in both proceedings.

Call (817) 203-2220 to schedule a free consultation with a defense attorney who handles both criminal and family law matters.

Icy Road Accidents | What to Watch Out For As Texas Freezes

Varghese Summersett — Fri, 23 Jan 2026 10:06:08 Z

Winter weather crashes in Texas may represent a small percentage of total annual collisions, but they result in a disproportionately high number of fatalities and serious injuries. The catastrophic 133-vehicle pileup on I-35W in Fort Worth in February 2021, which killed six people and injured dozens more, demonstrated just how deadly Texas ice can be. If someone else’s negligence caused your accident, you have the right to pursue a claim.

If you were injured in a car accident caused by icy roads in Texas, you may be entitled to compensation for your medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Texas law still requires drivers to exercise reasonable care even in winter conditions, and the at-fault driver can be held responsible for the crash. In some cases, government entities, road operators, or commercial trucking companies may also share liability.

Why Ice Accidents Are So Dangerous in Texas

Texas drivers face unique challenges during winter weather events. Unlike states in the northern U.S., Texas roads are not designed for ice, and most Texas drivers have limited experience handling frozen conditions. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation into the Fort Worth pileup revealed that catastrophic ice accidents are rarely caused by one factor alone. They result from a “perfect storm” of roadway physics, maintenance limitations, and driver behavior.

The dangers are amplified by several factors specific to Texas. Speed limits remain high even as conditions deteriorate. Many drivers attempt to maintain normal highway speeds despite ice and snow. And the state’s unpredictable weather means freezing conditions can develop suddenly, catching motorists off guard.

The Physics Behind Texas Ice Accidents

Understanding why ice forms where it does helps explain why these crashes are so devastating and who may be liable when they occur.

The Bridge Phenomenon: Why Elevated Roads Freeze First

Bridges, overpasses, and elevated ramps are the first roadways to freeze in Texas, often long before surface roads become dangerous. Unlike regular roads that are insulated by the earth beneath them, bridges lose heat from both the top and bottom surfaces. Cold air circulates above and below the structure, causing bridge temperatures to drop rapidly.

During the 2021 Fort Worth crash, the area had experienced 36 consecutive hours of below-freezing temperatures. The elevated toll lanes became a sheet of ice while other roads remained passable. A driver may travel confidently on a wet but unfrozen highway, only to lose control instantly upon hitting a bridge deck. This physical reality creates liability questions when road operators fail to adequately warn drivers or treat elevated surfaces.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The Dallas Morning News (@dallasnews)

Black Ice: The Invisible Killer

Black ice is a thin, transparent layer of ice that forms on roadways and allows the pavement color to show through. This makes it look like a simple wet patch or shadow rather than a deadly hazard. Video evidence from the I-35W crash showed the road surface appeared “shiny and reflective,” looking simply like wet pavement rather than a frozen sheet.

Black ice often forms at night or early morning when moisture from light rain, fog, or dew hits a road surface that has dropped below 32°F. Critically, it does not need to be raining heavily for ice to form. High humidity combined with freezing temperatures can cause ice to accumulate on bridges without significant precipitation. Drivers frequently have no visual warning until they have already lost traction.

The “Flash Freeze” Window

Timing is often fatal in ice accidents. In the Fort Worth incident, light mist and freezing rain began only minutes before the crash occurred. The precipitation started around 5:57 AM, and the first collision happened at approximately 6:00 AM. This creates a “flash freeze” scenario where a road that was safe moments ago suddenly becomes a skating rink.

This rapid onset of dangerous conditions raises serious questions about monitoring, warning systems, and the responsibility of road operators to close or restrict roadways when conditions deteriorate.

Avoiding Icy Road Accidents in Texas: Modern Technology Can Save Lives

Benson Varghese · Icy Roads in Texas: Accidents and Avoiding Them

The Barrier Effect in Restricted Lanes

In restricted lanes such as managed toll lanes or construction zones, concrete barriers prevent vehicles from sliding off the road into a ditch. While this sounds like a safety feature, it actually creates a more dangerous situation during ice events. Sliding vehicles bounce off the barriers and back into the path of oncoming traffic, creating unavoidable obstacles that lead to massive pileups. The I-35W toll lanes had this exact configuration, contributing to the severity of the crash.

Who Can Be Held Liable for an Ice-Related Crash?

Texas follows a fault-based system for car accidents, meaning the person or entity that caused the collision is responsible for damages. Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 33, victims can recover compensation as long as they are not more than 50% responsible for the accident. Several parties may be liable depending on the circumstances of your crash.

Other Drivers

Just because roads are icy does not excuse negligent driving. Texas law requires motorists to adjust their speed and driving behavior to match current conditions. A driver who fails to slow down, follows too closely, or loses control due to excessive speed can be held liable for resulting injuries.

“Speed too fast for conditions” is a common citation even when drivers are traveling below the posted limit. Data from the Fort Worth crash showed that just 15 minutes before the pileup, vehicles were traveling in the left lane at speeds exceeding 100 mph despite the freezing forecast. Even vehicles traveling 66 mph (under the 75 mph limit) could not stop once they hit the ice. On ice, stopping distances increase by a factor of three or more. At highway speeds, once a driver sees a stopped vehicle, it is often physically impossible to stop in time to avoid a collision.

Road Operators and Toll Authorities

The NTSB investigation into the Fort Worth crash identified significant failures by the road operator. These included inadequate monitoring of road conditions, failure to deploy environmental sensor technology, ineffective visual inspection protocols, and failure to close or restrict the roadway when conditions became dangerous.

Private toll road operators and public road authorities have a duty to maintain safe roadways. When they fail to adequately monitor conditions, warn motorists, or close dangerous road segments, they may be held liable for resulting injuries. The NTSB specifically cited the lack of Environmental Sensor Stations (ESS) on the crash segment. These sensors measure pavement temperature and grip factors in real-time. Without them, road operators were essentially guessing the condition of the road surface based on air temperature, which is often inaccurate.

Government Entities

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is responsible for treating highways during winter weather events. When government agencies fail to adequately prepare for foreseeable conditions, fail to warn motorists of hazards, or negligently treat roadways, they may be held liable under certain circumstances.

However, claims against government entities involve strict notice requirements and deadlines under the Texas Tort Claims Act. Government entities also have limited immunity for certain types of decisions. An experienced attorney can evaluate whether you have a viable claim based on the specific circumstances of your accident.

Commercial Trucking Companies

Commercial trucks pose particular dangers during winter weather. Tractor-trailers require significantly more stopping distance than passenger vehicles, and their size makes them prone to jackknifing on slick roads. Trucking companies have a duty to ensure their drivers are properly trained, their vehicles are maintained, and their routes are planned with weather in mind. When a truck accident occurs during icy conditions, the company may share responsibility.

Maintenance Failures That Cause Ice Accidents

Even when road crews are active, specific gaps in maintenance strategies contribute to accidents. Understanding these failures helps establish liability when crashes occur.

Pretreatment Limitations

Road crews often apply “pretreatment” (usually a brine of salt and water or Magnesium Chloride) days before a storm. In the Fort Worth crash, the road was treated 44 hours prior to the accident. However, pretreatment is only a temporary measure designed to prevent ice from bonding to the pavement. It does not guarantee traction, and its effectiveness diminishes over time or can be washed away by initial rain.

When road operators rely on pretreatment applied days earlier without adequate follow-up monitoring or reapplication, they may be negligent in maintaining safe roadways.

Visual Inspection Failures

Maintenance crews traditionally patrol roads to “spot check” for ice. However, visual inspections often fail to distinguish between water and black ice. In the Fort Worth case, crews drove through the crash zone roughly 45 minutes prior to the pileup and did not detect ice because the moisture had not yet frozen or was invisible to the naked eye.

The NTSB noted that some crews test for ice by briefly slamming their brakes to see if they slide, but this training is often inconsistent or insufficient to detect isolated patches of ice on a long stretch of highway. These inadequate inspection protocols can form the basis for negligence claims.

Failure to Deploy Sensor Technology

A major contributing factor cited by the NTSB was the lack of Environmental Sensor Stations on the specific roadway segment where the crash occurred. These sensors provide real-time data on pavement temperature and surface conditions. Without them, road operators cannot accurately assess when roads become dangerous.

The failure to install available safety technology, particularly on elevated roadways known to freeze faster than surface streets, may constitute negligence when that failure contributes to crashes.

If you or a loved one was injured in an ice-related crash, the experienced personal injury lawyers at Varghese Summersett can help you understand your options. Call (817) 203-2220 for a free consultation.

Types of Compensation Available After an Ice Accident

Victims of ice-related car accidents in Texas can pursue both economic and non-economic damages. The specific compensation available depends on the severity of your injuries and the impact on your life.

Economic Damages

Economic damages compensate you for financial losses that can be calculated with receipts, bills, and documentation. These include emergency room visits and hospital stays, surgeries and medical procedures, physical therapy and rehabilitation, prescription medications, medical equipment and assistive devices, lost wages during recovery, loss of future earning capacity, vehicle repair or replacement costs, and out-of-pocket expenses related to your injuries.

Non-Economic Damages

Non-economic damages address the intangible ways an accident affects your life. These include physical pain and suffering, emotional distress and mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement and scarring, loss of consortium (impact on relationships), and permanent disability or impairment. Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 41, punitive damages may also be available in cases involving gross negligence or egregious conduct.

Wrongful Death Claims

When an ice accident results in death, surviving family members may pursue a wrongful death claim. Texas law allows spouses, children, and parents of the deceased to seek compensation for funeral and burial expenses, loss of financial support, loss of love, companionship, and guidance, and mental anguish and emotional suffering.

How Texas Comparative Negligence Affects Your Claim

Texas uses a modified comparative negligence system, which means your compensation may be reduced if you share partial fault for the accident. For example, if you were speeding when you hit ice and collided with another vehicle that failed to yield, the jury might find you 30% at fault. Your total recovery would be reduced by that percentage.

The critical threshold is 51%. If you are found more than 50% responsible for the accident, you cannot recover any compensation under Texas law. Insurance companies understand this rule and often try to shift blame onto victims. They may argue you were driving too fast, following too closely, or failed to take appropriate precautions.

Evidence That Proves Liability

Proving liability in ice-related accidents requires thorough investigation. Evidence may include weather reports and road condition data from the National Weather Service, TxDOT treatment records and response timelines, toll road operator maintenance logs, Environmental Sensor Station data (if available), traffic camera and surveillance footage, witness statements, vehicle event data recorders (“black boxes”), accident reconstruction analysis, and 911 call records and first responder reports.

The sooner you begin building your case, the more evidence will be available. Road operators may overwrite surveillance footage, and electronic data can be lost if not preserved promptly.

Driver Behavior: How “Normalcy Bias” Causes Crashes

Texas drivers are habitually accustomed to high speeds and dry pavement, leading to dangerous behaviors when conditions change. Understanding these patterns helps establish fault when crashes occur.

Speeding Relative to Conditions

You do not have to break the speed limit to be driving dangerously. Posted speed limits are set for dry conditions. When roads are icy, “reasonable and prudent” speed is often significantly lower than the posted limit. Drivers who maintain highway speeds during winter weather warnings may be negligent even if they are technically within the speed limit.

The Cruise Control Danger

Using cruise control on slick surfaces is a major cause of loss-of-control accidents. Cruise control delays the driver’s recognition of traction loss and can cause the vehicle to accelerate when the wheels begin to slip. A driver using cruise control on icy roads who loses control and causes a collision may bear significant liability for the crash.

Following Too Closely

On dry pavement, a two-second following distance is considered safe. On ice, drivers need five to six seconds (or three times the normal distance) to stop safely. Drivers who tailgate during winter weather and rear-end stopped vehicles can be held fully liable for resulting injuries.

Common Injuries from Winter Weather Accidents

The high-speed nature of Texas highway crashes combined with icy conditions frequently results in severe injuries. Multi-vehicle pileups, which are common during winter weather events, can involve dozens of cars and result in catastrophic harm.

Traumatic Brain Injuries

The violent forces involved in ice-related collisions often cause traumatic brain injuries, ranging from concussions to severe TBI requiring lifelong care. Symptoms may not appear immediately, making it essential to seek medical attention after any winter weather crash.

Spinal Cord Injuries

Spinal cord injuries can result in partial or complete paralysis, fundamentally changing a victim’s life. The force of a crash on icy roads, particularly when a vehicle rolls over or is struck by a commercial truck, can cause devastating damage to the spine.

Broken Bones and Orthopedic Injuries

Fractures are extremely common in ice-related accidents. The impact of a collision can break arms, legs, ribs, pelvis, and facial bones. Many victims require multiple surgeries and extensive physical therapy to recover.

Internal Injuries

The blunt force trauma from a crash can damage internal organs, causing internal bleeding that may not be immediately apparent. Delayed symptoms are common with internal injuries, which is why prompt medical evaluation is critical.

Whiplash and Soft Tissue Injuries

Even lower-speed ice accidents can cause whiplash injuries and damage to muscles, ligaments, and tendons. While these injuries may seem minor initially, they can result in chronic pain and long-term limitations.

What to Do After an Ice-Related Car Accident

The steps you take immediately following an ice accident can significantly impact your ability to recover compensation. If you are physically able, take the following actions to protect yourself and your claim.

Prioritize Safety

If you are able to move and it is safe to do so, get to the side of the road away from traffic. Turn on your hazard lights and set out flares or reflective triangles if available. During winter weather events, the risk of secondary collisions is extremely high. If you cannot exit your vehicle safely, stay inside with your seatbelt fastened and call 911. If you slide off the road and become stranded, stay in your vehicle. Do not walk away in a storm.

Call 911 and Report the Accident

Always call law enforcement to report the accident, even if injuries seem minor. The police report will document the scene, weather conditions, and statements from those involved. This official record is valuable evidence for your claim.

Seek Medical Attention

Get evaluated by medical professionals as soon as possible. Some injuries, including traumatic brain injuries and internal bleeding, may not present obvious symptoms immediately. Prompt medical documentation also establishes a clear connection between the accident and your injuries.

Document the Scene

If you can do so safely, take photographs and video of the accident scene, vehicle damage, road conditions, and any visible injuries. Note the presence of ice, standing water, or other hazards. A road that looks “wet” but produces no spray from other vehicles’ tires is a classic sign of black ice. Get contact information from witnesses who saw the accident.

Be Careful What You Say

Avoid admitting fault or apologizing at the scene, as these statements can be used against you later. Stick to the facts when speaking with police. Do not provide recorded statements to insurance companies without consulting an attorney.

Contact a Personal Injury Attorney

Before accepting any settlement offer or signing any documents from an insurance company, speak with an experienced injury lawyer. Ice accident cases often involve complex liability questions, including potential claims against road operators, government entities, and multiple drivers.

Why Insurance Companies Fight Winter Weather Claims

Insurance adjusters know that ice-related accidents present unique challenges for victims. They exploit these complexities to minimize payouts or deny claims entirely.

Blaming the Weather

Insurers often argue that the weather was an “act of God” and that no one could have prevented the accident. While weather contributes to accidents, it does not excuse negligent driving. Drivers have a duty to adjust their behavior to conditions, and those who fail to do so can be held liable.

Shifting Blame to You

Insurance companies frequently try to argue that victims contributed to their own injuries by driving in bad weather, traveling too fast, or failing to maintain control. They understand that reducing your recovery by even a small percentage saves them money, and that finding you more than 50% at fault eliminates their obligation entirely.

Disputing the Severity of Injuries

Adjusters may claim your injuries existed before the accident, are not as serious as you claim, or do not require the treatment you received. They may request independent medical examinations with doctors who are known to minimize injuries.

Making Quick, Low Settlement Offers

Insurance companies often approach victims shortly after an accident with settlement offers that seem generous but are actually far below the true value of the claim. They count on victims being overwhelmed by medical bills and eager to resolve their claims quickly.

The personal injury team at Varghese Summersett has extensive experience fighting back against insurance company tactics. Our attorneys thoroughly investigate every case, consult with experts when necessary, and build strong claims designed to maximize recovery. With offices in Fort Worth, Dallas, Houston, and Southlake, we represent injured Texans across the state.

The Claims Process and Timeline

Understanding what to expect after an ice accident helps you prepare for the road ahead. While every case is different, most personal injury claims follow a general timeline.

Initial Investigation

Your attorney will gather evidence, obtain police reports and medical records, interview witnesses, and consult with experts as needed. In ice accident cases, this may include obtaining weather data, road treatment records, and any available sensor data from the road operator. This phase may take several weeks to several months depending on the complexity of the case.

Medical Treatment and Maximum Medical Improvement

It is generally advisable to wait until you have completed treatment or reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) before settling your claim. Settling too early means you may not recover compensation for future medical needs that were not yet apparent.

Demand and Negotiation

Once your damages are fully documented, your attorney will send a demand letter to the insurance company outlining your injuries, treatment, and requested compensation. The insurance company will respond, and negotiations will follow. Many cases settle during this phase.

Filing a Lawsuit

If negotiations do not produce a fair settlement, your attorney may recommend filing a lawsuit. Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.003, personal injury claims must generally be filed within two years of the accident. Claims involving government entities have shorter deadlines and additional notice requirements.

Discovery and Litigation

After a lawsuit is filed, both sides exchange information through discovery. This process includes written questions (interrogatories), document requests, and depositions. Discovery can take several months to over a year in complex cases involving multiple defendants.

Trial or Settlement

Most cases settle before trial, but having an attorney who is prepared to go to court strengthens your negotiating position. If your case does go to trial, a jury will hear evidence and determine liability and damages.

Warning Signs Every Texas Driver Should Know

Based on NTSB findings and TxDOT research, drivers are most at risk in Texas when temperatures are near or below freezing (32°F) and any moisture (fog, mist, or rain) is present. Elevated structures like bridges and ramps will be icy even if surface streets are wet but safe. A road that looks “wet” but produces no spray from other vehicles’ tires is a classic indicator of black ice. And traveling at posted highway speeds during winter advisories is dangerous because “reasonable and prudent” speed on ice is often far below the posted limit.

If you recognize these conditions, slow down significantly, increase your following distance, and never use cruise control. If you lose control despite taking precautions because another driver was negligent or road conditions were not properly managed, you may have a claim.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue if I crashed on ice because the road was not treated?

Possibly. Government entities like TxDOT and private toll road operators have a duty to maintain safe roadways, but they also have various legal protections. The NTSB investigation into the Fort Worth pileup identified multiple failures by the road operator, including inadequate monitoring and failure to close the roadway. An experienced attorney can evaluate whether you have a viable claim based on the specific circumstances of your accident.

What if the other driver says the ice caused the accident, not their driving?

Weather conditions do not eliminate driver responsibility. Texas law requires drivers to adjust their speed and behavior to match current conditions. If another driver was speeding, following too closely, using cruise control on ice, or otherwise driving negligently when they lost control and hit you, they can still be held liable for your injuries.

How long do I have to file a claim after an ice-related accident?

In Texas, you generally have two years from the date of the accident to file a personal injury lawsuit. However, claims against government entities have much shorter notice deadlines, sometimes as little as six months. It is important to consult with an attorney as soon as possible to ensure you do not miss any critical deadlines.

What if I was partially at fault for the accident?

You can still recover compensation as long as you were not more than 50% at fault. Your recovery will be reduced by your percentage of responsibility. For example, if you were 20% at fault and your damages totaled $100,000, you could recover $80,000.

Should I accept the insurance company’s settlement offer?

You should consult with an attorney before accepting any settlement offer. Insurance companies often make quick offers that are far below the true value of your claim. Once you accept a settlement, you cannot go back and ask for more money, even if your injuries turn out to be worse than initially expected.

What to Expect From Varghese Summersett

When you hire Varghese Summersett to handle your ice-related car accident claim, you get a team of dedicated professionals committed to fighting for your rights. Our firm has more than 70 team members across four Texas offices in Fort Worth, Dallas, Houston, and Southlake, giving us the resources to handle complex cases involving multiple parties, serious injuries, and disputed liability.

We investigate every case thoroughly, consulting with accident reconstruction experts, medical professionals, meteorologists, and other specialists as needed. We obtain road operator maintenance records, weather data, and sensor information when available. We handle all communication with insurance companies so you can focus on your recovery. And we prepare every case as if it is going to trial, because that preparation strengthens our negotiating position and ensures we are ready if the insurance company refuses to offer fair compensation.

Our attorneys work on a contingency fee basis for personal injury cases, meaning you pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes, but our track record demonstrates our commitment to achieving the best possible results for those we represent.

Texas Personal Injury Practice Areas

Our Texas injury lawyers fight for maximum compensation