green
Positive treatment
24.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gbenga Emanuel Owoye v. Omowumi Owoye
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam); Ivy v. Carrell, 407 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Tex. 1966).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Interest of J.F. II, a Child
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Interest of G.B.A.
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex. 1989); see Carpenter v. Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp., 98 S.W.3d 682, 686 (Tex. 2002); Hyperoam, Inc. v. Valley Wireless Internet, No. 13-04-180-CV, 2005 WL 1981505 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Aug. 18, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (when Craddock does not apply, “there is no basis to grant the motion for new trial based on its standards”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Todd Simmons v. Mitel Leasing, Inc. F/K/A Inter-Tel, Leasing, Inc.
But when our rules provide the defaulting party a remedy, Craddock does not apply.”) (citing Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (Tex. 1939)); LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam) (“[W]e agree that Craddock has no application here because the case was tried on the merits . . . .”); see also Velasco v. Ayala, 312 S.W.3d 783, 791 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (holding, when party was represented by attorney ad litem and trial on merits was conducted, that “the trial court’s decree is not a true default judgment”); In…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Interest of M.D.W., a Child
The motion was therefore untimely under local rule 3.02. 10 8 See LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex. 1989) (explaining that judgment was not post-answer default judgment because notwithstanding husband’s absence, his counsel appeared and represented husband at trial). 9 Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150, 161 (Tex. 2004); see In re E.L.T., 93 S.W.3d 372, 374 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.). 10 See Tarrant (Tex.) Loc.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Leonard Jack v. P and A Farms, LTD., D/B/A Crooked Creek Shooting Preserve
Div. of Youth & Family Sens. v. P.W.R., 410 N.J.Super. 501 , 983 A.2d 598 , 600 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.2009) (holding that it was improper for trial court to enter default against stepmother based on failure to appear personally at child abuse fact-finding hearing where her attorney *519 appeared to represent her interests), rev’d on other grounds, 205 N.J. 17 , 11 A.3d 844, 847 (2011) (noting that lower appellate court “panel concluded, rightfully, that the default was improper”); In re Brandon A., 769 A.2d 586, 589 (R.I.2001) (“defin[ing] an appearance as [a] coming into court as part…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lori Rosenstein v. Howard Rosenstein
Code Ann. § 105.002 (c)(2). [15] Low v. Henry , 221 S.W.3d 609, 614 (Tex. 2007); Cire v. Cummings , 134 S.W.3d 835 , 838–39 (Tex. 2004). [16] E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson , 923 S.W.2d 549, 558 (Tex. 1995); see also Low , 221 S.W.3d at 620 . [17] Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa , 299 S.W.3d 92, 97 (Tex. 2009); Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co. , 84 S.W.3d 198, 211 (Tex. 2002). [18] See LeBlanc v. LeBlanc , 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex. 1989). [19] See Tex. R.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lori Rosenstein v. Howard Rosenstein
In the modified decree, the trial court stated the following findings and conclusions on child support: 1. the amount of child support ordered by the Court is in accordance with the percentage guidelines; 2. the amount of net resources available to Howard . . . per month is $3,373.00; 3. the amount of net resources available to Lori . . . per month is $2,600.00; 18 See LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex. 1989). 19 See Tex. R.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Interest of M.V.G., a Child
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc , 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex. 19 89) (per curiam); In re K.C. , 88 S.W.3d 277, 279 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 20 02, pet. denied).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Interest of M.V.G., a Child
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex.l989) (per curiam); In re K.C., 88 S.W.3d 277, 279 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, pet. denied).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ogawa v. Ogawa
Ct. App. 1998) (providing that a trial court’s decision to enter a default judgment against parties for failing to appear at a hearing was improper because the parties “ ‘appealed]’ through their counsel”); Owen v. Healy, 896 A.2d 965, 967-68 (Me. 2006) (pointing out that the “fact that a person is a party to a civil action does not in itself impose a legal obligation upon that person to be present at trial,” and thus, when a party does not personally appear at trial, but his or her attorney does appear, a default against that party is not appropriate); Rocky Produce, Inc. v. Fro…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Interest of C.G.
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex.1989) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Cg
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex.1989) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Interest of J.J., a Child
Even though Robert did not personally attend the trial, his lawyer appeared, announced ready, and participated in the trial;9 Craddock therefore does not apply.10 In his reply brief, Robert appears to argue that even if the Craddock rule is not mandatory in this case, this court should nonetheless apply Craddock in 6 See id. §263.405(i). 7 D.W., 2008 WL 467328, at *12 . 8 Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 134 Tex. 388 , 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (1939). 9 See Wichita County v. Robinson, 155 Tex. 1 , 276 S.W.2d 509 , 512 (1954); Seals v. Upper Trinity Reg’l Water Dist., 145 S.W.3d 291, 297 (Te…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Deborah Joyce Jackson v. Phil Jackson, Jr.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc , 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam); In re K.C. , 88 S.W.3d 277, 279 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. denied); Curtis v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline , 20 S.W.3d 227 , 236 n.4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) The record shows that Phil filed an answer to Deborah’s petition seeking a divorce.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re KC
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
The majority reverses our holding in In re R.H . citing LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex.1989) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Interest of K.C., Children
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The majority reverses our holding in In re R.H. citing LeBlanc v. LeBlanc , 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Interest of K.C., Children
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The Supreme Court of Texas addressed this precise issue in LeBlanc v. LeBlanc , 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam), albeit in the divorce context.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Interest of K.C.
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
The Supreme Court of Texas addressed this precise issue in LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex.1989) (per cu-riam), albeit in the divorce context.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Duffy v. State
Turner, 778 S.W.2d at 866. 7 .Furthermore, the argument raised by Appellant does not constitute an affirmative defense to prosecution under Section 16.02.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Collins v. Collins
(2×)
PV Int'l Corp. v. Turner, 778 S.W.2d 865, 866 (Tex.1989). [3] On one of the post-order tapes, the wife asked the son if the conversation was being recorded; he answered that it was not. [4] Justice Hedges, joined by Justice Cohen, dissents from this part of the opinion. [5] During the husband's deposition, he was asked if he was planning on expressing an opinion at trial about CIC stock.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Vannerson v. Vannerson
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex.1989); Ivey v. Carrell, 407 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Tex.1966).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Rogers
International Corp. v. Turner, 778 S.W.2d 865, 866 (Tex.1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kellus Joseph Bravo v. Corraima Bravo
See LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex. 1989) (stating that there was no default even though husband failed to appear personally for trial because he was represented at trial by counsel); see also In re K.C., 88 S.W.3d 277 , 279 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. denied) (stating that mother could not invoke Craddock procedure—see Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. 1939)—because there was no default when mother did not appear for trial but her attorney did).
discussed
Cited "see"
Irma J. Leal v. Daniel Lopez
See LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865 (Tex. 1989) (The Craddock factors apply to all default judgments, those “entered on [the] failure of a defendant to file an answer and those entered on failure to appear for trial.” (citing Ivy v. Carrell, 407 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Tex. 1966))).
cited
Cited "see"
In the Interest of M.J.M., a Child v. the State of Texas
See LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865 (Tex. 1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
in the Matter of the Marriage of Rogelio Guerra and Susan Rabel Guerra
“Generally, a party who does not provide to the trial court any value for the property cannot, on appeal, complain of the trial court’s lack of information in dividing the community estate.” Wheeling v. Wheeling, 546 S.W.3d 216, 228 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, no pet.); see LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 761 S.W.2d 450, 453 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1988), aff’d, 778 S.W.2d 865 (Tex. 1989) (holding that where an appellant fails to provide values on any of the property to the trial court, he cannot on appeal complain of the trial court’s lack of complete information in dividing or va…
discussed
Cited "see"
in the Matter of the Marriage of Rogelio Guerra and Susan Rabel Guerra
“Generally, a party who does not provide to the trial court any value for the property cannot, on appeal, complain of the trial court’s lack of information in dividing the community estate.” Wheeling v. Wheeling, 546 S.W.3d 216, 228 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, no pet.); see LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 761 S.W.2d 450, 453 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1988), aff’d, 778 S.W.2d 865 (Tex. 1989) (holding that where an appellant fails to provide values on any of the property to the trial court, he cannot on appeal complain of the trial court’s lack of complete information in dividing or va…
cited
Cited "see"
in the Interest of A.J.M. and A.C.M., Children
See LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex. 1989). 3 III.
discussed
Cited "see"
in the Interest of J.O.A., a Child
See LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam); C.B. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., No. 03-12-00833-CV, 2013 WL 1567469 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 11, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.); Velasco v. Ayala, 312 S.W.3d 783, 791 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.); In re K.C., 88 S.W.3d 277, 279 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. denied). 9 Under the Craddock test, a party moving for new trial following a no-answer or post-answer default judgment must satisfy three elements: (1) the failure to answer or appear was not intentional or the result of con…
cited
Cited "see"
Argent Development, L.P. v. Las Colinas Group, L.P. and Billy Bob Barnett
See Turner v. PV Int’l Corp., 765 S.W.2d 455, 461 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988), writ denied, 778 S.W.2d 865 (Tex. 1989); Metroflight, Inc. v. Shaffer, 581 S.W.2d 704, 709 (Tex. Civ.
cited
Cited "see"
Elishah Sawyers, Pax Crate & Freight, Inc. and Robin Sawyers v. Marc Carter and Sally Carter
See Turner v. PV Int'l Corp., 765 S.W.2d 455, 465 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1988, writ denied per curiam, 778 S.W.2d 865 (Tex. 1989)); Copenhaver v. Berryman, 602 S.W.2d 540, 544 (Tex. Civ.
discussed
Cited "see"
C. B. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Leblanc, 778 S.W.2d at 865 (Craddock inapplicable because no default where husband did not appear personally but was represented at trial by counsel); Velasco v. Ayala, 312 S.W.3d 783, 791 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (no default where defendant did not appear but was represented by attorney ad litem at trial); In re K.C., 88 S.W.3d 277 , 279 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. denied) (mother could not invoke 3 Craddock procedure because no default where mother did not appear but her attorney appeared for trial and trial on merits was conducted); cf. In re R.R., 209 S.W…
discussed
Cited "see"
in the Interest of C.M.D. and H.M.A. A/K/A H.M.A., Children
See LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex. 1989) (explaining that judgment was not post-answer default judgment because although husband did not personally appear for trial, husband’s counsel appeared and represented husband at trial); Stoner v. Thompson, 578 S.W.2d 679, 682 (Tex. 1979) (explaining distinctions between no-answer default judgment, judgment nihil dicit, and post-answer default judgment).
discussed
Cited "see"
in the Interest of C.M.D. and H.M.A. A/K/A H.M.A., Children
See LeBlanc v. LeBlanc , 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex. 1989) (explaining that judgment was not post-answer default judgment because although husband did not personally appear for trial, husband’s counsel appeared and represented husband at trial); Stoner v. Thompson , 578 S.W.2d 679, 682 (Tex. 1979) (explaining distinctions between no-answer default judgment, judgment nihil dicit, and post-answer default judgment).
discussed
Cited "see"
Velasco v. Ayala
See LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex.1989) (explaining that there is no default when party is represented at trial by counsel, even though party failed to appear personally for trial); In re K.C., 88 S.W.3d 277, 279 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, pet. denied) (stating that Craddock does not apply when party’s attorney appears and case is tried on merits); see also Jackson v. Jackson, No. 01-04-01215-CV, 2006 WL 3095384 , at *4 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 2, 2006, no pet.) (not designated for publication).
discussed
Cited "see"
Betsabe Ivonne Niessen Velasco v. Alfonso Ignacio Ayala
See LeBlanc v. LeBlanc , 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex. 1989) (explaining that there is no default when party is represented at trial by counsel, even though party failed to appear personally for trial); In re K.C. , 88 S.W.3d 277, 279 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. denied) (stating that Craddock does not apply when party’s attorney appears and case is tried on merits); see also Jackson v. Jackson , No. 01-04-012150CV, 2006 WL 3095384 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 2, 2006, no pet.) (not designated for publication).
discussed
Cited "see"
in the Interest of J.J., a Child
Code Ann. § 263.405(b). 6: See id. §263.405(i). 7: D.W. , 2008 WL 467328, at *12 . 8: Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc. , 134 Tex. 388 , 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (1939). 9: See Wichita County v. Robinson , 155 Tex. 1 , 276 S.W.2d 509 , 512 (1954); Seals v. Upper Trinity Reg’l Water Dist. , 145 S.W.3d 291, 297 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. dism’d) (“ A party who examines witnesses or offers testimony has made a general appearance.”). 10: See LeBlanc v. LeBlanc , 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex. 1989); In re K.C. , 88 S.W.3d 277, 279 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet denied). 11: See T EX…
cited
Cited "see"
State Farm Lloyd's Insurance Company v. Ashby AAA Automotive Supply, Inc.
See Turner v. PV Int'l Corp., 765 S.W.2d 455, 465 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1988), writ denied per curiam, 778 S.W.2d 865 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Starck v. Nelson
See LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 761 S.W.2d 450, 454 (Tex.App. — Coipus Christi 1988), writ denied per curiam, 778 S.W.2d 865 (Tex.1989); Powell v. Powell, 721 S.W.2d 394, 395 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1986, no writ); Casterline v. Burden, 560 S.W.2d 499, 501 (Tex. Civ.App. — Corpus Christi 1977, no writ); Anderson v. Anderson, 503 S.W.2d 124, 126 (Tex. Civ.App. — Corpus Christi 1973, no writ); McSween v. McSween, 472 S.W.2d 307, 310 (Tex. Civ.App. — San Antonio 1971, no writ). 11 .
cited
Cited "see"
Hatzlachh Supply, Inc. v. Moishe's Electronics Inc.
See Leblanc v. Leblanc, 778 S.W.2d 865, 865 (Tex.1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Holt Atherton Industries, Inc. v. Heine
(2×)
See Turner v. PVInti Corp., 765 S.W.2d 455, 465 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1988, writ denied per curiam, 778 S.W.2d 865 (Tex. 1989)); Copenhaver v. Berryman, 602 S.W.2d 540, 544 (Tex.Civ.
cited
Cited "see"
Cluett v. Medical Protective Co.
See Turner v. PV Int’l Corp., 765 S.W.2d 455, 467 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988), writ denied per curiam, 778 S.W.2d 865 (Tex.1989); see also Whittlesey v. Miller, 572 S.W.2d 665, 666 (Tex.1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pemelton v. Pemelton
Wierzchula, 623 S.W.2d at 732 ; see LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 761 S.W.2d 450, 452-53 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 1988), writ denied per curiam, 778 S.W.2d 865 (Tex.1989); Brunell v. Brunell, 494 S.W.2d 621, 622-23 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1973, no writ); Hedtke v. Hedtke, 112 Tex. 404 , 248 S.W. 21, 22-23 (1923).
discussed
Cited "see"
Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Inc.
This Court has held that “[w]hile a decision of a federal court, other than the Supreme Court, may be persuasive in a state court on a federal matter, it is, nevertheless, not binding, since the state court owes obedience to only one federal court, namely, the Supreme Court.” Barstow v. State, 742 S.W.2d 495 , 501 n. 2 (Tex.App. 1987, writ denied) (quoting from Moore & Oglebay, The Supreme Court, Stare Deci-sis and Law of the Case, 21 Tex.L.Rev. 514, 525 (1943)); accord Turner v. PV Int’l Co., 765 S.W.2d 455, 470 (Tex.App.1988), writ denied per curiam, 778 S.W.2d 865 (Tex.1989); Omniphon…
cited
Cited "see"
Weldon J. Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Incorporated
Rev. 514 , 525 (1943)); accord Turner v. PV Int'l Co., 765 S.W.2d 455, 470 (Tex. App. 1988), writ denied per curiam, 778 S.W.2d 865 (Tex. 1989); Omniphone, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Tel.
cited
Cited "see"
Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corp. v. T.F. Stone-Liberty Land Associates
See Turner v. PV Int’l Corp., 765 *494 S.W.2d 455, 471-72 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988), writ denied per curiam, 778 S.W.2d 865 (Tex.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dennis Wayne Glenn v. Patty Ann Glenn
Todd v. Todd, 173 S.W.3d 126, 129 (Tex.App.— Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied); Deltuva v. Deltuva, 113 S.W.3d 882, 887 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.)(op. on reh’g); Sereno v. Sereno, No. 13–08–00691–CV, 2010 WL 5541709 , at *2 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christ Dec. 30, 2010, no pet.)(mem. op.); Vannerson v. Vannerson, 857 S.W.2d 659, 670 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied); see also LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 761 S.W.2d 450, 453 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1988), aff’d, 778 S.W.2d 865 (Tex. 1989)(holding that “where an appellant fails to provide values on any of the property to th…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robert Michelena v. Monica Michelena
“One who complains of the way the trial court divided the properties must be able to show from the evidence in the record that the division is so unjust and unfair as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” Id.; see also LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 761 S.W.2d 450, 453 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1988), aff’d, 778 S.W.2d 865 , 865 (Tex. 1989).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PV INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and R.W. Forsythe, Petitioners,
v.
Malcolm TURNER, Respondent
v.
Malcolm TURNER, Respondent
C-8529.
Texas Supreme Court.
Oct 4, 1989.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM.
In this action for fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and alienation of affections, the trial court admitted evidence obtained by petitioner, R.W. For-sythe, by a wiretapping device which For-sythe hooked up to his residential tele[*866] phone. He recorded several conversations between his wife, Barbara Forsythe, and respondent, Malcolm Turner. The court of appeals held that the tape recorded telephone conversations between Barbara For-sythe and Malcolm Turner constituted an illegal wiretap under 18 U.S.C. § 2515 and that admission of these tapes into evidence was reversible error. Accordingly, the court of appeals reversed and remanded to the trial court for a new trial. 765 S.W.2d 455.
The court of appeals declined to follow Simpson v. Simpson, 490 F.2d 803 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 897, 95 S.Ct. 176, 42 L.Ed.2d 141 (1974), which is factually analogous to the instant case. The court in Simpson held that § 2515 is “not sufficiently definite and specific to create a federal cause of action” for a former husband’s use of a wiretapping device to intercept wife’s conversations in their marital home. Id. at 810.
In denying the application for writ of error, we are not to be construed as approving or disapproving the holding of the court of appeals on the admissibility of the tape recorded telephone conversations.
The application for writ of error is denied.