Start with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In Texas, Texas calls the opening paper a petition. Self-represented parties file in District Court (County Court at Law / Justice Court for many claims). Individuals may appear pro se. Corporations and LLCs generally must appear through a licensed Texas attorney (Justice Court has limited non-lawyer appearance rules for certain entities). That is the question this guide answers for filing a lawsuit without a lawyer. E-filing: eFileTexas. Texas generally requires e-filing in District and County Courts, including for many self-represented parties, with limited exemptions. Justice Court e-filing rules vary — many still accept paper. Service: Tex. R. Civ. P. 99–107; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 17. Small claims: Justice Court (Justice Court civil jurisdiction generally up to $20,000).
Contents
- What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?
- Can you litigate pro se in Texas?
- Role of the judge and the jury
- Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions
- How to file and serve in Texas
- Registering for e-filing
- Discovery
- Rules of evidence (short tour)
- Summary judgment and other dispositive motions
- How LawDiver can help
- Texas case law highlights
- Frequently asked questions
What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?
Self-represented litigants lose cases when they confuse sources of law. Use these definitions when you research on LawDiver:
| Source | What it is | How you use it in Texas |
|---|---|---|
| Statute | A law enacted by the legislature (or Congress) | Creates rights, duties, damages caps, notice periods, and causes of action |
| Case (opinion) | A written decision of a court resolving a dispute | Interprets statutes and rules; binds lower courts in the same hierarchy when it is controlling precedent |
| Court rule | A procedural regulation adopted by the judiciary | Tells you how to plead, serve, discover, and try a case — e.g. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure |
| Regulation | A rule issued by an executive agency under statutory authority | Matters when your claim involves licensed industries, benefits, or administrative prerequisites |
| Local rule / administrative order | County- or court-specific filing practice | Often controls e-filing mandates, cover sheets, and hearing calendars |
A winning Texas theory usually needs all three of: (1) a substantive statute or common-law claim, (2) a pleading that satisfies the civil rules, and (3) admissible evidence under the Texas Rules of Evidence.
How the Texas rule applies
Apply the Texas authorities in order. The facts are simplified so the statute and the standard are visible.
A person in Texas wants to sue without a lawyer and has not yet filed anything.
- Confirm you may appear without counsel: Individuals may appear pro se. Corporations and LLCs generally must appear through a licensed Texas attorney (Justice Court has limited non-lawyer appearance rules for certain entities).
- Draft a petition and file it in District Court (County Court at Law / Justice Court for many claims). E-filing: Texas generally requires e-filing in District and County Courts, including for many self-represented parties, with limited exemptions. Justice Court e-filing rules vary — many still accept paper.
- Serve under Tex. R. Civ. P. 99–107; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 17. Serve the citation and petition — personal service by a sheriff, constable, or private process server is standard. File the return of service. Justice Court has simplified service rules.
- Expect discovery under Tex. R. Civ. P. 190–215 govern discovery levels, disclosures, and enforcement. Choose the correct discovery level early. A jury demand follows Demand a jury under Tex. R. Civ. P. 216 and pay the jury fee by the deadline. Justice Court jury practices differ; many small disputes are bench trials.
Missing service or a limitations deadline is not excused because the filer is pro se in Texas. The evidence companion is the Texas evidence guide.
Can you litigate pro se in Texas?
Individuals may appear pro se. Corporations and LLCs generally must appear through a licensed Texas attorney (Justice Court has limited non-lawyer appearance rules for certain entities).
Pro se (sometimes in propria persona or self-represented) means you speak for yourself. Courts often construe pro se papers liberally on formatting, but they do not invent claims you failed to plead, excuse missed statutes of limitation, or waive service defects. If a corporation is on the other side with counsel, you will still be held to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
TexasLawHelp and court self-help centers publish Justice Court and civil petition forms.
Texas opinions on pro se practice
Sandra F. WHEELER, Petitioner, v. Darrin Edward GREEN, Respondent
Sandra F. WHEELER, Petitioner, v. Darrin Edward GREEN, Respondent, 48 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 408 (2005)
…out in his summary judgment motion that Sandra — appearing pro se — actually had filed responses six months before the motion was heard, but two days after they were due. Sandra asserts the summary judgment was error, and under the facts presented here we agree. Sandra gave birth to a daughter in December 1998. She sued to establish Darrin’s paternity in February 1999. By fina…
Sandra F. WHEELER, Petitioner, v. Darrin Edward GREEN, Respondent is worth reading on Texas pro se because the court put the point in its own words: "Sandra — appearing pro se — actually had filed responses six months before the motion was heard, but two days after they were due. Sandra asserts the summary judgment was error, and under the facts presented here we agree. Sandra gave birth to a daughter in December 1998." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Margie CANTON-CARTER, Appellant v. BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, Appellee
…ber 23, 2008. 930 Margie Canton-Carter, Missouri City, TX, pro se. Joanna Walker Raynes, Peggy R. Ban, Houston, TX, for appellees. Panel consists of Justices ANDERSON, FROST and HUDSON.[] MAJORITY OPINION JOHN S. ANDERSON, Justice. Pro se appellant, Margie Canton-Carter, appeals the trial court's granting of appellee, Baylor College of Medicine's motion for summary judgment.…
Texas opinions such as Margie CANTON-CARTER, Appellant v. BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, Appellee are cited where pro se is disputed. The court stated: "Margie Canton-Carter, Missouri City, TX, pro se. Joanna Walker Raynes, Peggy R. Ban, Houston, TX, for appellees. Panel consists of Justices ANDERSON, FROST and HUDSON.[*] MAJORITY OPINION JOHN S. ANDERSON, Justice." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Charles Clay WARNER, Jr., Petitioner, v. Zelda G. GLASS, Respondent
Charles Clay WARNER, Jr., Petitioner, v. Zelda G. GLASS, Respondent, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 538 (2004)
PER CURIAM. The question in this case is whether a pro se inmate’s civil petition is deemed filed when it is turned over to prison authorities for mailing or when it is actually received by the court clerk. Consistent with the Inmate Litigation Act 1 and Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, we hold that a pro se inmate’s petition that is placed in a properly a…
Practitioners open Charles Clay WARNER, Jr., Petitioner, v. Zelda G. GLASS, Respondent when Texas pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "PER CURIAM. The question in this case is whether a pro se inmate’s civil petition is deemed filed when it is turned over to prison authorities for mailing or when it is actually received by the court clerk." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
John C. SHULL, Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Appellee
John C. SHULL, Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Appellee, 4 S.W.3d 46 (1999)
…se assertions. Shull’s seventh point of error is overruled. Pro Se Litigants and Trial Sanctions In his final points of error, Shull argues that a pro se litigant is not required to uphold the same standard of conduct as an attorney. He complains that the sanctions imposed against him were excessive and without merit. He specifically complains that when Judge Crouch imposed san…
On pro se, John C. SHULL, Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Appellee speaks to the Texas dispute in this passage: "Shull’s seventh point of error is overruled. Pro Se Litigants and Trial Sanctions In his final points of error, Shull argues that a pro se litigant is not required to uphold the same standard of conduct as an attorney." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
James Lynn CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
James Lynn CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, 2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1168 (2010)
…granted appellant’s sole ground for review, which he filed pro se: “The court of appeals erred in holding that the mailbox rule filing and received by clerk after deposited within ten days applied to indigent criminal defendants acting pro se.” An amended brief has been filed by “Counsel for Appellant.” In that brief, appellant asserts that the court of appeals “erred in holdi…
James Lynn CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas is worth reading on Texas pro se because the court put the point in its own words: "The court of appeals erred in holding that the mailbox rule filing and received by clerk after deposited within ten days applied to indigent criminal defendants acting pro se.” An amended brief has been filed by “Counsel for Appellant." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Ex Parte Danny Dean THOMAS AKA Shozdijiji Shisinday
Ex Parte Danny Dean THOMAS AKA Shozdijiji Shisinday, 1995 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 87 (1995)
…appellant had been "energetically flooding the courts with pro se motions since his conviction." See Hubbard, 739 S.W.2d at 343. We held that allowing the appellant to file his pro se briefs in that case would not unduly hamper the administration of justice based upon the unusual facts of the case and the delay already caused to that appellant. Id. at 345. The record shows tha…
Practitioners open Ex Parte Danny Dean THOMAS AKA Shozdijiji Shisinday when Texas pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "See Hubbard, 739 S.W.2d at 343. We held that allowing the appellant to file his pro se briefs in that case would not unduly hamper the administration of justice based upon the unusual facts of the case and the delay already caused to that appellant. Id. at 345." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Emmett WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee for the Certificateholders, CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed
…by letter dated June 9, 2011, notified Washington that his pro se brief 1 did not comply with the rules of appellate procedure and directed him to file an amended brief that complied with rule 38.1. In response, appellant filed on June 20, 2011 a document entitled “Affidavit of Notice of Appeal and Counterclaim.” However, this document also failed to comply with the rules of a…
Emmett WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee for the Certificateholders, CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed is worth reading on Texas pro se because the court put the point in its own words: "June 9, 2011, notified Washington that his pro se brief 1 did not comply with the rules of appellate procedure and directed him to file an amended brief that complied with rule 38.1." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Paul MINIX, Appellant, v. Paul GONZALES, Curtis Pitts, and Layla Wuttke, Appellees — Frost, J., concurring
…precedent in the parts of the majority opinion that state a pro se inmate should be treated more favorably in civil litigation than those who are not pro se inmates: A pro se inmate’s petition should be viewed with liberality and patience and is not held to the stringent standards applied to pleadings drafted by attorneys ... Construing Minix’s petition with liberality and pati…
Texas opinions such as Paul MINIX, Appellant, v. Paul GONZALES, Curtis Pitts, and Layla Wuttke, Appellees — Frost, J., concurring are cited where pro se is disputed. The court stated: "A pro se inmate’s petition should be viewed with liberality and patience and is not held to the stringent standards applied to pleadings drafted by attorneys ..." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Role of the judge and the jury
- The judge decides questions of law: what the statute means, whether a pleading states a claim, which evidence is admissible, and how the jury (if any) is instructed. In bench trials and most small-claims matters, the judge also finds the facts.
- The jury decides disputed questions of fact in jury-eligible civil cases when a timely demand is made and any jury fee is paid.
- Demand a jury under Tex. R. Civ. P. 216 and pay the jury fee by the deadline. Justice Court jury practices differ; many small disputes are bench trials.
Practical tip: decide before filing whether you want a jury. Late demands are often waived. Small-claims paths (Justice Court) usually trade speed for no jury and limited discovery.
Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions
Pleadings are the formal papers that frame the lawsuit. In Texas the plaintiff's opening paper is typically a petition. It should:
- Identify the parties and the court (District Court (County Court at Law / Justice Court for many claims) or the small-claims forum).
- Allege facts that, if true, entitle you to relief under a recognized claim.
- Demand judgment (money, injunction, declaratory relief, or other remedies the court can grant).
- Include a jury demand if you want one and the claim is jury-triable.
The defendant responds with an answer (admissions, denials, affirmative defenses) and/or a motion to dismiss challenging legal sufficiency, jurisdiction, or service. Later motions (compel discovery, summary judgment, limine) are usually not “pleadings” in the technical sense, but they drive most civil cases.
Texas pleadings opinions
CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, L.P., Petitioner, v. PRO PLUS, INC., Respondent
…0.002(c). Id. § 150.002(c), (e). The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and granted an extension in the same order. Pro Plus appealed the interlocutory order. The court of appeals held: (1) it had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal; (2) the trial court abused , its discretion by granting the extension without good cause; and (8) Pro Plus did not waive its right…
On pleadings, CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, L.P., Petitioner, v. PRO PLUS, INC., Respondent speaks to the Texas dispute in this passage: "Id. § 150.002(c), (e). The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and granted an extension in the same order. Pro Plus appealed the interlocutory order." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
LAWYERS CIVIL PROCESS, INC., and Grandstaff Civil Process Co., Appellants, v. the STATE of Texas, on the Relation of
…error: (1) the trial court should have granted appellants’ motion to dismiss, because the Dallas district and county judges are necessary and indispensable parties who were not joined in the suit; (2) the portion of the trial court’s judgment requiring appellants to first tender citations to the sheriff, constable or clerk of court for attempted service is error, because there…
Practitioners open LAWYERS CIVIL PROCESS, INC., and Grandstaff Civil Process Co., Appellants, v. the STATE of Texas, on the Relation of when Texas pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "error: (1) the trial court should have granted appellants’ motion to dismiss, because the Dallas district and county judges are necessary and indispensable parties who were not joined in the suit; (2) the portion of the trial court’s judgment requiring appellants to first tender" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
PRO PLUS, INC., Appellant v. CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, L.P., Appellee
…63 O P I N I O N In the trial court, Pro Plus, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the claims of Crosstex Energy Services, L.P. on the ground that Crosstex had failed to file a certificate of merit with its original petition, as required by Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 150.002.[1] Identifying eleven issues, Pro Plus appeals the trial court’s order denying its motion to d…
On pleadings, PRO PLUS, INC., Appellant v. CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, L.P., Appellee speaks to the Texas dispute in this passage: "O P I N I O N In the trial court, Pro Plus, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the claims of Crosstex Energy Services, L.P. on the ground that Crosstex had failed to file a certificate of merit with its original petition, as required by Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 150.002." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
PAKAL ENTERPRISES, INC. and Rene Dominguez, Appellants, v. LESAK ENTERPRISES LLC D/B/A Pro Surv and Toby P
…erved on Lesak. On June 3, 2009, Lesak and Couchman filed a motion to dismiss for failure to file a certificate of merit. On June 19, 2009, Pakal amended its petition again and, for the first time, included a certificate of merit. On August 21, 2009, the trial court conducted a hearing on Lesak and Couch-man’s motion to dismiss, and Pakal moved to extend the deadline to file th…
Texas opinions such as PAKAL ENTERPRISES, INC. and Rene Dominguez, Appellants, v. LESAK ENTERPRISES LLC D/B/A Pro Surv and Toby P are cited where pleadings is disputed. The court stated: "Lesak. On June 3, 2009, Lesak and Couchman filed a motion to dismiss for failure to file a certificate of merit. On June 19, 2009, Pakal amended its petition again and, for the first time, included a certificate of merit." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
In Re: Pamela Staley Declaratory Judgment Action.
In Re: Pamela Staley Declaratory Judgment Action., 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 6213 (2010)
…and 2. Within either twelve months of execution of a Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and Agreed Order of Dismissal by all parties to this agreement, by and through their respective counsel, or within ten (10) days of one of the trusts receiving proceeds from closing on the sale of a parcel of land held by one of the trusts released in this Agreement, whichever occurs fi…
In Re: Pamela Staley Declaratory Judgment Action. is worth reading on Texas pleadings because the court put the point in its own words: "and 2. Within either twelve months of execution of a Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and Agreed Order of Dismissal by all parties to this agreement, by and through their respective counsel, or within ten (10) days of one of the trusts receiving proceeds from closing on the" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Toby Paul COUCHMAN and Pro-Surv, Appellants v. Elizabeth CARDONA, Appellee
…gedly incorrect land survey. Couch-man and Pro-Surv filed a motion to dismiss based on Cardona’s failure to file a certificate of merit with her petition. Car-dona nonsuited her claims against Couch-man and Pro-Surv and later filed the underlying suit based on the same underlying injury. Couchman and Pro-Surv filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied. In two issue…
Toby Paul COUCHMAN and Pro-Surv, Appellants v. Elizabeth CARDONA, Appellee is worth reading on Texas pleadings because the court put the point in its own words: "Couch-man and Pro-Surv filed a motion to dismiss based on Cardona’s failure to file a certificate of merit with her petition. Car-dona nonsuited her claims against Couch-man and Pro-Surv and later filed the underlying suit based on the same underlying injury." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
How to file and serve in Texas
Filing
- Choose the correct forum: District Court (County Court at Law / Justice Court for many claims) for larger or complex civil cases; Justice Court when your claim fits Justice Court civil jurisdiction generally up to $20,000.
- Prepare the petition (and any required cover sheet, civil case information statement, or summons).
- Pay the filing fee or apply for a fee waiver / indigency finding as Texas practice allows.
- Obtain a signed summons (or local equivalent) from the clerk after the case is opened.
Governing procedure: Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Service of process
Filing alone does not start the clock against the defendant in a meaningful way — service does. Authority: Tex. R. Civ. P. 99–107; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 17.
Serve the citation and petition — personal service by a sheriff, constable, or private process server is standard. File the return of service. Justice Court has simplified service rules.
Defective service is one of the most common reasons pro se cases are dismissed without prejudice (or worse, delayed until limitations problems appear). Keep copies of every affidavit or return.
Texas service opinions
In the Matter of W. L. C.
In the Matter of W. L. C., 562 S.W.2d 454 (1978)
…to the juvenile during the transfer hearing was sufficient service of process to successfully invoke the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The court of civil appeals found such service sufficient and affirmed the juvenile court. 556 S.W.2d 133. We reverse. The State instituted a juvenile delinquency proceeding against W.L.C. and filed a motion to transfer therein, on the gro…
In the Matter of W. L. C. is worth reading on Texas service of process because the court put the point in its own words: "The court of civil appeals found such service sufficient and affirmed the juvenile court. 556 S.W.2d 133. We reverse. The State instituted a juvenile delinquency proceeding against W.L.C." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LIBBY, MONTANA, Appellant, v. Ken RECTOR, Et Ux., Appellees
…in nature. First, the defendant may try to demonstrate that service of process was inadequate under the service of process rules of the sister state. Second, he may assert that the sister state’s exercise of in personam jurisdiction does not meet the requirements of due process of law. The validity of the Montana judgment is controlled by the law of Montana but due process must…
On service of process, FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LIBBY, MONTANA, Appellant, v. Ken RECTOR, Et Ux., Appellees speaks to the Texas dispute in this passage: "First, the defendant may try to demonstrate that service of process was inadequate under the service of process rules of the sister state. Second, he may assert that the sister state’s exercise of in personam jurisdiction does not meet the requirements of due process of law." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
COUNTRY CLUBS, INC., Appellant, v. John A. WARD and Jack Smalley, Partners, D/B/A John Ward Associates Advertising
…es that the Texas judgment should be voided because (1) the service of process by the Kentucky Secretary of State was inadequate to confer jurisdiction on the Kentucky court, and (2) there was no activity by appellant in Kentucky sufficient to warrant jurisdiction by the Kentucky court either under the Kentucky statute or the Federal Constitution. The “Long Arm Statute” of the…
On service of process, COUNTRY CLUBS, INC., Appellant, v. John A. WARD and Jack Smalley, Partners, D/B/A John Ward Associates Advertising speaks to the Texas dispute in this passage: "Kentucky Secretary of State was inadequate to confer jurisdiction on the Kentucky court, and (2) there was no activity by appellant in Kentucky sufficient to warrant jurisdiction by the Kentucky court either under the Kentucky statute or the Federal Constitution." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
James COLSON, Appellant, v. THUNDERBIRD BUILDING MATERIALS, a Division of L & W Supply Corp., a Delaware
…st a non-resident was void unless there was either personal service of process within the forum state or voluntary appearance of the defendant in the suit. The realities of a mobile, urban population eventually led to the modification of that rule 2 by the “minimum contacts” standard stated in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed.…
Practitioners open James COLSON, Appellant, v. THUNDERBIRD BUILDING MATERIALS, a Division of L & W Supply Corp., a Delaware when Texas service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The realities of a mobile, urban population eventually led to the modification of that rule 2 by the “minimum contacts” standard stated in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
BROWN’S INC., Appellant, v. MODERN WELDING CO. and Bud Northington, Appellees
…ally served with process, and (2) they were not amenable to service of process from Washington because they did not have sufficient minimum contacts with that state. 3 The trial court granted appellees’ motion, and denied appellant’s petition with out specifying a reason. This appeal ensued. B. Applicable Law It is well-established that a state must give the final judgment of a…
On service of process, BROWN’S INC., Appellant, v. MODERN WELDING CO. and Bud Northington, Appellees speaks to the Texas dispute in this passage: "Washington because they did not have sufficient minimum contacts with that state. 3 The trial court granted appellees’ motion, and denied appellant’s petition with out specifying a reason. This appeal ensued. B." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Niclas L. JONSSON, Appellant v. RAND RACING, L.L.C., a Texas Limited Liability Company and William Rand, an
…two grounds: (1) the defendant may try to demonstrate that service of process was inadequate under the service of process rules of the sister state or (2) the defendant may assert the sister state’s exercise of jurisdiction offends due process because he does not have minimum contacts with the sister state. Id. at 401-02. The presumption of validity can only be overcome by cle…
Niclas L. JONSSON, Appellant v. RAND RACING, L.L.C., a Texas Limited Liability Company and William Rand, an is worth reading on Texas service of process because the court put the point in its own words: "two grounds: (1) the defendant may try to demonstrate that service of process was inadequate under the service of process rules of the sister state or (2) the defendant may assert the sister state’s exercise of jurisdiction offends due process because he does not have minimum con" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Bette J. MAYFIELD, Appellant, v. DEAN WITTER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Appellee
…rt of Travis County. At issue is the validity of Mayfield’s service of process. We will affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1985, Mayfield executed four contracts with Dean Witter in connection with her purchase of interests in two limited partnerships. Mayfield consented to the jurisdiction and venue of New York courts over the subject matter of the contracts. In early 1992, Dean…
Bette J. MAYFIELD, Appellant, v. DEAN WITTER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Appellee is worth reading on Texas service of process because the court put the point in its own words: "Travis County. At issue is the validity of Mayfield’s service of process. We will affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1985, Mayfield executed four contracts with Dean Witter in connection with her purchase of interests in two limited partnerships." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
In the Interest of M. L. W., a Child
In the Interest of M. L. W., a Child, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 495 (2012)
…mmons” in Michigan) under the Michigan rules of alternative service of process. 3 We affirm the trial court’s judgment denying certification of the Michigan judgment of divorce. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Gonzalez and Wier were married in Michigan. Upon the couple’s separation, Gonzalez initially moved from Michigan to Chicago, Illinois, where he first resided with his mother, Minerva…
Texas opinions such as In the Interest of M. L. W., a Child are cited where service of process is disputed. The court stated: "Michigan) under the Michigan rules of alternative service of process. 3 We affirm the trial court’s judgment denying certification of the Michigan judgment of divorce. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Gonzalez and Wier were married in Michigan." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Registering for e-filing
Texas's primary electronic filing path is eFileTexas.
How to register: Create an eFileTexas account through an approved Electronic Filing Service Provider (EFSP), verify identity, and pay fees or file a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs.
Pro se reality check: Texas generally requires e-filing in District and County Courts, including for many self-represented parties, with limited exemptions. Justice Court e-filing rules vary — many still accept paper.
When you e-file:
- Use PDF/A or the portal's accepted formats; flatten forms before upload.
- Check that party names match the caption exactly.
- Calendar the clerk's acceptance email — a rejected filing is often treated as unfiled.
- Serve other parties under the rules (e-service through the portal may not replace initial service of process).
Discovery
After pleadings, parties exchange information. In Texas:
Tex. R. Civ. P. 190–215 govern discovery levels, disclosures, and enforcement. Choose the correct discovery level early.
Typical tools:
- Interrogatories — written questions answered under oath.
- Requests for production — documents, ESI, and tangible things.
- Requests for admission — force yes/no authenticity or fact stipulations.
- Depositions — live testimony under oath (expensive; plan carefully if you are self-represented).
If the other side stonewalls, a motion to compel and, later, sanctions motions are the enforcement path. Courts expect meet-and-confer first in most jurisdictions.
Texas discovery opinions
PERRY HOMES, a Joint Venture, Home Owners Multiple Equity, Inc., and Warranty Underwriters Insurance Company
…f items of merits-based information and conducted months of discovery under the rules of court; finally only four days before the trial setting they changed their minds and decided they would prefer to arbitrate after all. Having gotten what they wanted from the litigation process, they could not switch to arbitration at the last minute like this. The Plaintiffs argue and we…
Texas opinions such as PERRY HOMES, a Joint Venture, Home Owners Multiple Equity, Inc., and Warranty Underwriters Insurance Company are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "Having gotten what they wanted from the litigation process, they could not switch to arbitration at the last minute like this." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
SAFETY-KLEEN CORP., Relator, v. the Honorable Ricardo H. GARCIA, Respondent
SAFETY-KLEEN CORP., Relator, v. the Honorable Ricardo H. GARCIA, Respondent, 945 S.W.2d 268 (1997)
…rds. As Mr. Gonzalez was stating earlier, we have conducted discovery towards the defendants in response to their motion for transfer, and I believe — roughly, it was five to ten percent of the defendants have responded to this discovery. So at this point until the defendant— THE COURT: I’m not responsible for the defendants not responding to your motions. MR. EDWARDS: Yes, sir…
On discovery, SAFETY-KLEEN CORP., Relator, v. the Honorable Ricardo H. GARCIA, Respondent speaks to the Texas dispute in this passage: "As Mr. Gonzalez was stating earlier, we have conducted discovery towards the defendants in response to their motion for transfer, and I believe — roughly, it was five to ten percent of the defendants have responded to this discovery." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
In RE NATIONAL LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator
In RE NATIONAL LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator, 60 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 54 (2016)
…he National Lloyds transfer, the pretrial court appointed a discovery special master to assist in its review of discovery disputes. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 171. On January 14, 2014, the pretrial court adopted a revised master discovery plan approved by the special master. The plan included a single set of institutional discovery requests directed to each insurer, including National…
In RE NATIONAL LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator is worth reading on Texas discovery because the court put the point in its own words: "National Lloyds transfer, the pretrial court appointed a discovery special master to assist in its review of discovery disputes. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 171. On January 14, 2014, the pretrial court adopted a revised master discovery plan approved by the special master." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
ABLE SUPPLY COMPANY, Et Al., Relator, v. the Honorable B.D. MOYE, Judge, Respondent
…tends that the information requested is beyond the scope of discovery. In their first attempt to obtain a meaningful answer to question 30, the defendants filed a motion to compel a supplemental answer on December 22, 1991, which was denied by the trial court. Nearly two years later, the defendants filed the motion that is the subject of this proceeding. Pursuant to Texas Rules…
Texas opinions such as ABLE SUPPLY COMPANY, Et Al., Relator, v. the Honorable B.D. MOYE, Judge, Respondent are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "In their first attempt to obtain a meaningful answer to question 30, the defendants filed a motion to compel a supplemental answer on December 22, 1991, which was denied by the trial court." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
In Re HOUSTON PIPE LINE COMPANY, Et Al., Relator
In Re HOUSTON PIPE LINE COMPANY, Et Al., Relator, 311 S.W.3d 449 (2009)
…a Texas trial court applies Texas procedure, which permits discovery to be taken when it is needed before the arbitration or to permit the arbitration to be conducted in an orderly manner. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 171.086(a)(4),(6); see also Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 268 (Tex.1992). At issue in this proceeding is whether the trial court abused its discre…
Texas opinions such as In Re HOUSTON PIPE LINE COMPANY, Et Al., Relator are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "Texas trial court applies Texas procedure, which permits discovery to be taken when it is needed before the arbitration or to permit the arbitration to be conducted in an orderly manner. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 171.086(a)(4),(6); see also Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
In Re CHAMPION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and Permian Mud Service, Inc.
In Re CHAMPION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and Permian Mud Service, Inc., 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 7655 (2005)
…aring, presumably because they wanted to conduct additional discovery regarding the enforceability of the arbitration agreement. After receiving the announcements from trial counsel, the trial court took a recess during which it conferred with counsel in chambers. Upon the conclusion of the conference with counsel, the trial court announced the following disposition which is th…
Texas opinions such as In Re CHAMPION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and Permian Mud Service, Inc. are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "After receiving the announcements from trial counsel, the trial court took a recess during which it conferred with counsel in chambers." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
In Re F.C. HOLDINGS, INC., Nigel J. Harrison, Individually, JLL Associates FCH, L.P., JLL Associates G.P. FCH
…as Rule of Civil Procedure 196.3 and granting sanctions for discovery abuse. 1 For the reasons stated in this opinion, we deny the petition. Background In April 2007, Don R. Reavis, the real party in interest, entered into an employment contract with the First National Bank of Crockett. This contract inchtded a clause to arbitrate any disputes between the parties to the contrac…
Practitioners open In Re F.C. HOLDINGS, INC., Nigel J. Harrison, Individually, JLL Associates FCH, L.P., JLL Associates G.P. FCH when Texas discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Rule of Civil Procedure 196.3 and granting sanctions for discovery abuse. 1 For the reasons stated in this opinion, we deny the petition. Background In April 2007, Don R." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Rules of evidence (short tour)
Trials and many motion hearings are decided on admissible evidence, not on what you know happened. Texas applies the Texas Rules of Evidence. Core ideas:
- Relevance — does the proof make a fact of consequence more or less probable?
- Authenticity — is the exhibit what you claim it is?
- Hearsay — is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth, and if so, does an exception apply?
- Privileges — attorney-client, spousal, and other privileges can block inquiry even when the facts are relevant.
For a full Texas walkthrough of hearsay, business records, authenticity, and depositions at trial, read the companion guide: Texas Evidence Law: Admissibility, Hearsay, and Authenticity.
Summary judgment and other dispositive motions
Many civil cases never reach a jury. A party may move for summary judgment by showing there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pro se litigants lose these motions when they respond with argument instead of affidavits, authenticated exhibits, and pinpoint record citations.
Texas summary-judgment opinions
Beverly R. JACKSON, Appellant, v. FIESTA MART, INC., Appellee
Beverly R. JACKSON, Appellant, v. FIESTA MART, INC., Appellee, 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 6728 (1998)
…on Fiesta’s premises. Fiesta filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment under Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(i) claiming that after adequate time for discovery, Jackson produced no evidence in support of an essential element of her dangerous-premises claim. The trial court granted Fiesta’s motion on the basis that there was no evidence that Fiesta knew or should have known the liquid…
Practitioners open Beverly R. JACKSON, Appellant, v. FIESTA MART, INC., Appellee when Texas summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Fiesta’s premises. Fiesta filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment under Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(i) claiming that after adequate time for discovery, Jackson produced no evidence in support of an essential element of her dangerous-premises claim." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Margie CANTON-CARTER, Appellant v. BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, Appellee
…anting of appellee, Baylor College of Medicine's motion for summary judgment. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant filed suit against appellee, Dr. Alan Tita, and Dr. Erin L. O'Brien for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of a hysterectomy performed on July 17, 2002. In May 2005, the trial court granted Dr. Tita's motion for summary judgment and dism…
Margie CANTON-CARTER, Appellant v. BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, Appellee is worth reading on Texas summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "Baylor College of Medicine's motion for summary judgment. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant filed suit against appellee, Dr. Alan Tita, and Dr. Erin L. O'Brien for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of a hysterectomy performed on July 17, 2002." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Carl BURNS, Petitioner, v. Larriet THOMAS, Respondent
Carl BURNS, Petitioner, v. Larriet THOMAS, Respondent, 33 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 353 (1990)
…w partner, Larriet Thomas, as a defendant. Thomas moved for summary judgment on the ground that Burns’ action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. After severing out the claim against Wardroup, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Thomas; the court of appeals affirmed. We reverse *267 the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to the…
On summary judgment, Carl BURNS, Petitioner, v. Larriet THOMAS, Respondent speaks to the Texas dispute in this passage: "Larriet Thomas, as a defendant. Thomas moved for summary judgment on the ground that Burns’ action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Pablo TELLO, Appellant v. BANK ONE, N.A. and Banc One Acceptance Corp., Appellees
…RLES W. SEYMORE, Justice. Appellant, Pablo Tello, appeals a summary judgment in favor of appellees, Bank One, N.A. and Bank One Acceptance Corp., on their claim against Tello for breach of a vehicle lease agreement and on Tello’s counterclaims for DTPA violations, common-law fraud, and breach of contract. We affirm. I. Background Tello entered into a written agreement to lease…
Texas opinions such as Pablo TELLO, Appellant v. BANK ONE, N.A. and Banc One Acceptance Corp., Appellees are cited where summary judgment is disputed. The court stated: "RLES W. SEYMORE, Justice. Appellant, Pablo Tello, appeals a summary judgment in favor of appellees, Bank One, N.A. and Bank One Acceptance Corp." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Murray MICHAEL, Individually, Et Al., Appellants, v. Lester DYKE, M.D., Appellee
OPINION DORSEY, Justice. This is an appeal from a summary judgment. Murray Michael and STEP, Inc. 2 sued Dr. Lester Dyke and others for various causes of action stemming from the circumstances surrounding the business competition between the parties. *750 Michael is a licensed perfusionist and also a principal in STEP, Inc., a business that provides perfusion services…
On summary judgment, Murray MICHAEL, Individually, Et Al., Appellants, v. Lester DYKE, M.D., Appellee speaks to the Texas dispute in this passage: "OPINION DORSEY, Justice. This is an appeal from a summary judgment. Murray Michael and STEP, Inc. 2 sued Dr. Lester Dyke and others for various causes of action stemming from the circumstances surrounding the business competition between the parties." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Randy T. McCOY, Appellant v. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC., David Cotton, Ken Melvin, and David Solomon, Appellees
…a company-wide reduction in force. Appel-lees were granted summary judgment. Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c), (i). McCoy appeals asserting: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel and (2) the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on his racial discrimination and retaliation claims. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Factual and Procedura…
Practitioners open Randy T. McCOY, Appellant v. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC., David Cotton, Ken Melvin, and David Solomon, Appellees when Texas summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Appel-lees were granted summary judgment. Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c), (i). McCoy appeals asserting: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel and (2) the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on his racial discrimination and retaliation claims." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Debbie ESQUIVEL and Florida Residential Property & Casualty Joint Underwriters Association, Appellants, v. MURRAY
…(“Esquivel”), appeal from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee, Murray Guard, Inc. (“Murray Guard”). Esquivel brings three points of error, contending the trial court erred in (1) granting summary judgment in favor of Murray Guard on her tort claim; (2) granting summary judgment in favor of Murray Guard on her contract claim; and (3) requiring…
Debbie ESQUIVEL and Florida Residential Property & Casualty Joint Underwriters Association, Appellants, v. MURRAY is worth reading on Texas summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "Esquivel”), appeal from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee, Murray Guard, Inc. (“Murray Guard”)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
In Re: Pamela Staley Declaratory Judgment Action.
In Re: Pamela Staley Declaratory Judgment Action., 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 6213 (2010)
…mplaining the trial court erred in granting the motions for summary judgment filed by Thomas and Staley & Associates, Inc., and James Herblin, individually and as trustee of Heritable Trust assignee of Charis Interests, and erred in denying her own motion for summary judgment. She also argues the trial court improperly “modified and altered” the terms and conditions of the CSA…
In Re: Pamela Staley Declaratory Judgment Action. is worth reading on Texas summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "Thomas and Staley & Associates, Inc., and James Herblin, individually and as trustee of Heritable Trust assignee of Charis Interests, and erred in denying her own motion for summary judgment." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
How LawDiver can help
LawDiver is built for researching the same authorities a courtroom expects — not for inventing cites.
- LawDiver search — From this guide page, the search rail is scoped to Texas. Search phrases like
pro se,service of process,motion to compel, or your statute number. - Corpus-linked opinions — Every case block above links to a
/casedisplayopinion id that exists in LawDiver's caselaw corpus. Do not paste outside citations into filings unless you have verified them. - Statutes — Where Texas codes are mirrored, open the linked statute sections from this article and read the live text before quoting.
- GoodLaw / citator workflow — Before you rely on an older opinion, check how later Texas cases treat it.
- Evidence companion — Use the Texas evidence guide when you are preparing exhibits or opposing a motion in limine.
- AI research with grounding — Prefer tools that require retrieval from your matter and the LawDiver corpus over chatbots that invent case names.
LawDiver does not file documents for you, give legal advice, or replace a lawyer when the stakes, opposing counsel, or entity-representation rules require one.
Texas case law highlights
Use the topic sections above for pro se practice, pleadings, service, discovery, and summary judgment. Re-run LawDiver searches before hearings — new published opinions appear continuously.
Checklist before you file in Texas
- Confirm you (not an entity) may appear pro se for this claim.
- Pick Justice Court vs District Court (County Court at Law / Justice Court for many claims) based on amount and remedy.
- Draft a petition that states facts and a legal theory.
- Register on eFileTexas (or confirm paper filing is allowed).
- Arrange proper service under Tex. R. Civ. P. 99–107; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 17.
- Calendar answer deadlines, discovery cutoffs, and any jury-demand deadline.
- Research controlling Texas cases and the Texas Rules of Evidence on LawDiver.
- Consider limited-scope or full representation if the other side has counsel or the claim exceeds small-claims complexity.
Key takeaways
- Individuals may appear pro se. Corporations and LLCs generally must appear through a licensed Texas attorney (Justice Court has limited non-lawyer appearance rules for certain entities).
- Main trial forum: District Court (County Court at Law / Justice Court for many claims). Smaller disputes often belong in Justice Court (Justice Court civil jurisdiction generally up to $20,000).
- Procedure: Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Opening paper: a petition.
- Service: Tex. R. Civ. P. 99–107; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 17. Serve the citation and petition — personal service by a sheriff, constable, or private process server is standard.
- E-filing: eFileTexas. Texas generally requires e-filing in District and County Courts, including for many self-represented parties, with limited exemptions.
- Pair this page with the LawDiver search rail (scoped to Texas) and the Texas evidence guide.
Primary search phrases this page targets: file a lawsuit without a lawyer Texas; Texas pro se litigation; eFileTexas pro se; how to sue someone in Texas.
Frequently asked questions
How do I file a lawsuit without a lawyer in Texas?
Prepare a petition, file it in the correct Texas court (District Court (County Court at Law / Justice Court for many claims) or Justice Court), pay or waive the fee, obtain a summons, and complete service under Tex. R. Civ. P. 99–107; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 17. Register for eFileTexas when e-filing is required or available.
What is the difference between a statute and a court rule?
A statute creates substantive rights and duties. A court rule (such as Texas Rules of Civil Procedure) controls procedure — captions, service, discovery, and trial mechanics. You usually need both.
Do I need to register for e-filing?
Texas generally requires e-filing in District and County Courts, including for many self-represented parties, with limited exemptions. Justice Court e-filing rules vary — many still accept paper. Registration steps: Create an eFileTexas account through an approved Electronic Filing Service Provider (EFSP), verify identity, and pay fees or file a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs.
Will I get a jury?
Demand a jury under Tex. R. Civ. P. 216 and pay the jury fee by the deadline. Justice Court jury practices differ; many small disputes are bench trials.
What happens in discovery?
Tex. R. Civ. P. 190–215 govern discovery levels, disclosures, and enforcement. Choose the correct discovery level early.
How does LawDiver help a pro se litigant?
It lets you search and read Texas opinions and statutes that actually exist in the LawDiver corpus, with links you can verify — reducing the risk of hallucinated citations — while you still remain responsible for filing, service, and courtroom advocacy.
Disclaimer
LawDiver publishes this guide for public legal-information and SEO education purposes. It is not a substitute for advice from a licensed Texas attorney. Court rules, e-filing vendors, fee schedules, and jurisdictional limits change. Verify every citation and deadline against official Texas sources and the live LawDiver corpus before relying on them in a filing.