Week of July 6, 2026

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of July 6, 2026.

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

Ochoa v. State, Nos. 02-21-00174-CR, 02-21-00175-CR, 02-21-00176-CR (July 9, 2026) (Wallach, J., joined by Birdwell and Womack, JJ.) (op. on remand).

Held:  Appellant’s confession affected the entire trial, and the other evidence of his guilt was not so overwhelming that it could overcome the confession’s probable effect. Because this court cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession made no contribution to his conviction, its admission was harmful.

Williams v. EMOB Decatur, L.P., No. 02-25-00342-CV (July 9, 2026) (Birdwell, J., joined by Sudderth, C.J., and Kerr, J.).

Held:  Section 262.0331(b)(1) of the Texas Health and Safety Code confers discretionary authority on a hospital authority’s board of directors to determine the “appropriate provisions” to be made “for the satisfaction of any outstanding bonds, debt obligations, or other liabilities of the authority.” The Board Members of Decatur Hospital Authority exercised their discretion when they made certain provisions for the satisfaction of the Authority’s liabilities, if any, under its lease with EMOB and then voted on a budget that did not allocate funds for the Authority to continue paying rent under the lease. The Board Members’ acts were protected by governmental immunity; EMOB’s ultra vires claim is not proper against the Board Members; and the trial court reversibly erred by denying the Board Members’ plea to the jurisdiction. Additionally, the trial court did not reversibly err by overruling EMOB’s objections to the Board Members’ jurisdictional evidence.