abuse of discretion standard in Texas

2023When applying the abuse of discretion standard, we look to see if the underlying decision was made “without reference to any guiding rules and principles.” Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 380 .

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW “[A]s an appellate court, we review the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” Jackson v. State, 562 S.W.3d 717, 722 (Tex. App.— Amarillo 2018, no pet.) (citing Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).

2024McQuarrie, 380 S.W.3d at 155; Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 141 2000) (“An appellate court reviewing a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence must utilize an abuse-of-discretion standard of review.”). 142 McQuarrie, 380 S.W.3d at 150-55 .

2024McQuarrie, 380 S.W.3d at 155; Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 141 2000) (“An appellate court reviewing a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence must utilize an abuse-of-discretion standard of review.”). 142 McQuarrie, 380 S.W.3d at 150-55 .

2026Although we review a trial court’s revocation decision under an abuse of discretion standard, see Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493 , we review the evidence presented at a revocation proceeding in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling.

2026Although we review a trial court’s revocation decision under an abuse of discretion standard, see Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493 , we review the evidence presented at a revocation proceeding in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling.

2023Standard of Review “An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision to exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” Burden v. State, 55 S.W.3d 608, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (citing Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92 , 101-02 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

2011We review a trial court’s decision to exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard, and we must therefore affirm the trial court’s decision unless it is beyond the “zone of reasonable disagreement.” Green v. State , 934 S.W.2d 92 , 101–02 (Tex. Crim.

2021“We review the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence, as well as its decision as to whether the probative value of evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, under an abuse of discretion standard.” Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727, 736 (Tex. Crim.

2015See id.; State v. Dittman (In re District Attorney’s Office of the 25th Judicial Dist.), 358 S.W.3d 244, 246 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (holding that the discretion of the trial court in matters of discovery includes the discretion to exercise the statutory authority to order production of evidence for inspection and copying); Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727, 736 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (noting that we review the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse-of-discretion standard); see also In re Ligon, No. 09-14- *180 00262-CR, 2014 WL 2902324 , at *2, 2014 Tex.App.

2026A. Standard of Review “We review the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” Davis v. State, 169 S.W.3d 673, 675 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (citing Burden v. State, 55 S.W.3d 608, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)).

2023Standard of Review “An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision to exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” Burden v. State, 55 S.W.3d 608, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (citing Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92 , 101-02 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

2015App. 2009) (“A trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of extraneous offenses is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.”); Torres v. State, 71 S.W.3d 758, 760 (Tex. Crim.

2015App. 2009) (“A trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of extraneous offenses is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.”); Torres v. State, 71 S.W.3d 758, 760 (Tex. Crim.

2025Dejean, in a Chapter 23A susceptibility-to-partition-in-kind case, explained the relationship between abuse of discretion and sufficiency review this way: “Under an abuse-of- discretion standard, legal and factual sufficiency are not independent grounds for reversal, they are simply relevant factors in determining if the trial court abused its discretion.” Dejean, 2024 WL 1668018 , at *2 (citing Beaumont Bank, N.A., 806 S.W.2d at 226 ).

2025“Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, legal 4 and factual sufficiency are not independent grounds for reversal, they are simply relevant factors in determining if the trial court abused its discretion.” Id. (citing Beaumont Bank, N.A. v. Buller, 806 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1991)).

2025“A trial court’s denial of a mistrial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Id. (citing State v. Gonzales, 855 S.W.2d 692, 696 (Tex. Crim.

2010He further asserts that the spectator’s conduct was “designed to deny appellant a fair trial.” A trial court’s denial of a request for a mistrial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.40 An appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, considering only those arguments before the court at the time of the ruling.41 The ruling must be upheld if it was within the zone of reasonable disagreement.42 A mistrial is an extreme remedy that should be granted “only when residual prejudice remains” after less drastic alternatives have been explored.

2015Standard of Review “A trial court's ruling denying a defendant's motion for new trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 148 (Tex. Crim.

2015Standard of Review “A trial court's ruling denying a defendant's motion for new trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 148 (Tex. Crim.

2026“We review a trial court’s decision regarding custody, control, and possession matters involving [children] under an abuse of discretion standard.” In re B.F., No. 06-24-00100-CV, 2025 WL 2252577 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Aug. 7, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.) (alteration in original) (quoting In re D.W.J.B., 362 S.W.3d 777, 780 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012, no pet.) (citing Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982))).

2026Modification of Child Support and Transfer Location A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law “We review a trial court’s decision regarding custody, control, and possession matters involving [children] under an abuse of discretion standard.” In re B.F., No. 06-24-00100-CV, 2025 WL 2252577 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Aug. 7, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.) (alteration in original) (quoting In re D.W.J.B., 362 S.W.3d 777, 780 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012, no pet.) (citing Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982))).

2026Although we review a trial court’s revocation decision under an abuse of discretion standard, see Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493 , we review the evidence presented at a revocation proceeding in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling.

2026Although we review a trial court’s revocation decision under an abuse of discretion standard, see Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493 , we review the evidence presented at a revocation proceeding in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling.

2018Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 398 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996, no writ).

2018Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 398 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996, no writ).

2023P. 190.3(b)(1)(B) (“All discovery must be conducted during the discovery period, which begins when the first initial disclosures are due and continues until[] . . . the earlier of (i) 30 days before the date set for trial, or (ii) nine months after the first initial disclosures are due.”). 40666 S.W.3d at 56, 59; see Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tex. 2004) (“A trial court’s ruling on a motion for sanctions is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.”). 41 TEX.

2020The Lees knew Berkel’s position 34 See, e.g., In re Mahindra, USA Inc., 549 S.W.3d 541, 550 (Tex. 2018) (“The abuse of discretion standard is ‘typically applied to procedural . . . determinations’ and ‘is especially appropriate when the trial court must weigh competing policy considerations and balance interests.’” (quoting In re Doe, 19 S.W.3d 249, 253 (Tex. 2000))); Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 , 838–39 (Tex. 2004) (“The test for an abuse of discretion is . . . ‘whether the court acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles,’” and a court’s exercise of its discretion will

2010“Generally, a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed by an abuse of discretion standard.” Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex. Crim.

2010"Generally, a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed by an abuse of discretion standard." Oles v. State , 993 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex. Crim.

2006However, under the abuse of discretion standard applied to decisions on whether to admit or exclude evidence, see Alvarado , 897 S.W.2d at 753-54 , Cooper has not discussed how the evidentiary ruling, if error, resulted in an improper judgment.

2006However, under the abuse of discretion standard applied to decisions on whether to admit or exclude evidence, see Alvarado , 897 S.W.2d at 753-54 , Cooper has not discussed how the evidentiary ruling, if error, resulted in an improper judgment.

2019In evaluating an expert’s qualifications, the qualifications the expert possesses must be evident from the four corners of the report and from the resume that accompanies the expert’s report.22 We use an abuse-of-discretion standard when reviewing the trial court’s decision that an expert in a health care liability case has the qualifications that are required to allow 21 Id. at 226. 22 See Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 878 ; Christus Health Se.

2017This Court also “review[s] a trial court’s rulings on the adequacy of an expert report under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Hollingsworth v. Springs, 353 S.W.3d 506, 512 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.) (citing Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 877 ).

2016Thus, “[w]e review a trial court’s decision to submit or refuse a particular instruction under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. (citing Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. E.B., 802 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Tex. 1990)).

2016Thus, “[w]e review a trial court’s decision to submit or refuse a particular instruction under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. (citing Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. E.B., 802 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Tex. 1990)).

2026Dowtech Specialty Contractors, Inc. v. City of Weinert, 630 S.W.3d 206 , 215 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2020, pet. denied) (citing Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam)); see Diaz v. Diaz, 350 S.W.3d 251, 256 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, pet. denied) (“Under an abuse of discretion standard, we will not reverse the trial court’s judgment if the trial court reaches a correct result even for a wrong reason.”).

2026Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990). 5 In family law cases, the abuse-of-discretion standard overlaps with the traditional sufficiency-of-the-evidence standards of review.

2014Ex parte Garcia, 353 S.W.3d 785, 787-88 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (adopting the abuse-of-discretion standard articulated in Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (1997) for appellate review of article 11.072 habeas proceedings).

2014Ex parte Skelton, No. 04-12-00066- CR, 2014 WL 2198379, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 28, 2014, no pet. h.) (op. on reh’g) (citing Ex parte Garcia, 353 S.W.3d at 787-88 ) (adopting the abuse of discretion standard set out in Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim.

2025See Villareal v. State, 935 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tex. Crim.

2015The test for abuse of discretion requires the appellate court to determine whether the trial court acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner without reference to any guiding rules or principles.4 A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner or without reference to any guiding rules or principles.5 An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court clearly failed to analyze and determine the law correctly or applied the law incorrectly to the facts.6 Because Appellant is challenging the trial court’s misapplication of law and fact in denying its Motion

2009A. Standard of Review While our review of a trial court’s admission or exclusion of evidence is under the abuse of discretion standard, including extraneous offense evidence during the punishment phase of a trial, Mitchell v. State , 931 S.W.2d 950, 953 (Tex. Crim.

2009A. Standard of Review While our review of a trial court’s admission or exclusion of evidence is under the abuse of discretion standard, including extraneous offense evidence during the punishment phase of a trial, Mitchell v. State, 931 S.W.2d 950, 953 (Tex. Crim.

2025The appointment of a Receiver lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and appellate courts review the appointment under an abuse of discretion standard. 72 A court may abuse its discretion by ruling “arbitrarily, unreasonably, ... without regard to guiding legal principles, or ... without supporting evidence.”73 Crucially, as to ruling “without supporting evidence,” the trial court generally does not abuse its discretion when its decision is based on conflicting evidence and some evidence in the record reasonably supports the trial court’s decision. 74 Thus, “[a] trial court does

2024See Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 , 20–21 (Tex. 1998) (“The abuse of discretion standard applies when a trial court has discretion either to grant or deny relief based on its factual determinations.

2026A. Standard of Review “[A] trial judge’s ruling on the admissibility of extraneous offenses is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Irsan v. State, 708 S.W.3d 584 , 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 2025) (alteration in original) (quoting De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)).

2025As mentioned, “a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of extraneous offenses is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” De La Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 343 .

2015Charles v. State, 146 S.W.3d 204, 208 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (appropriate standard of review for ineffective assistance claim brought forth in motion for new trial is abuse of discretion); see also Schoenbauer v. State, 85 S.W.3d 400, 402 (Tex.App.—Tyler 2002, no pet.) ("When the appellant has presented evidence on his counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness at a hearing on a motion for new trial, we review the application of the test pronounced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2062 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), through the prism of an abuse of discretion standard.”).

2015We review a trial court’s denial' of a motion for new trial under an abuse of discretion standard, Charles v. State, 146 S.W.3d 204, 208 (Tex.Crim.App.2004).

2026See Powell v. State, 63 S.W.3d 435, 438 (Tex. Crim.

2015“Because trial courts are in the best position to make the call on these substantive admissibility questions, an appellate court must review a trial court's admissibility decision under an abuse of discretion standard.” Powell v State, 63 S.W. 3d, 435 (Tex. Crim.

2023Standard of Review “We review a trial court’s pretrial bail determination under an abuse of discretion standard.” Ex parte Cardenas, 557 S.W.3d 722, 729 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2018, no pet.) (citing Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 850 (Tex. Crim.

2016ARGUMENT Standard of Review This Court reviews the trial court’s ruling on a motion to reduce bail under an abuse of discretion standard.19 To determine whether abuse occurred, this Court 14 R.R. pg. 8. 15 R.R. pg. 10. 16 R.R. pg. 9. 17 C.R. pg. 15. 18 C.R. pg. 15. 19 Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 850 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981). 3 must decide whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles, whether the act was arbitrary or unreasonable.20 The court must not disturb the trial court’s ruling if it was within the zone of reasonable disagreement.21 Appl

2020The Lees knew Berkel’s position 34 See, e.g., In re Mahindra, USA Inc., 549 S.W.3d 541, 550 (Tex. 2018) (“The abuse of discretion standard is ‘typically applied to procedural . . . determinations’ and ‘is especially appropriate when the trial court must weigh competing policy considerations and balance interests.’” (quoting In re Doe, 19 S.W.3d 249, 253 (Tex. 2000))); Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 , 838–39 (Tex. 2004) (“The test for an abuse of discretion is . . . ‘whether the court acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles,’” and a court’s exercise of its discretion will

2016Thus, in an abuse-of-discretion challenge, “the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court,” id. at 839, but instead must only consider whether the trial court “acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles,” Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex.1985).

2026“Once we determine the [l]egislature’s intent in enacting a provision, we apply an abuse of discretion standard to determine whether the trial court acted correctly in applying those provisions.” Allen, 658 S.W.3d at 777; see Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (stating that a trial court has no discretion to misinterpret the law nor to misapply the law to the facts).

2025Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839 ; Chandy v. Kerala Christian Adult Homes, LLC, 618 S.W.3d 880 , 886 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2021, no pet.) (“We review the trial court’s decision whether to terminate a receivership under an abuse of discretion standard.”).