green
Positive treatment
30.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
In the Matter of T.K.E.
See, e.g., Matter of A.C., 949 S.W.2d 388 , 390 n. 1 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1997, no writ); Matter of A.S., 954 S.W.2d 855 , 858 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1997, no writ); R.X.F. v. State, 921 S.W.2d 888, 889 (Tex.App.—Waco 1996, no writ); but see In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993) (noting that reliance on adult criminal precedent and rules may conflict with the Texas Family Code).
discussed
Cited "but see"
In Re TKE
See, e.g., Matter of A.C., 949 S.W.2d 388 , 390 n. 1 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ); Matter of A.S., 954 S.W.2d 855 , 858 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997, no writ); R.X.F. v. State, 921 S.W.2d 888, 889 (Tex.App.-Waco 1996, no writ); but see In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993) (noting that reliance on adult criminal precedent and *785 rules may conflict with the Texas Family Code).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Matter of AC
But see In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993)(noting that reliance on adult criminal cases and criminal procedural rules appears to conflict to some extent with Texas Family Code), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1078 , 114 S.Ct. 894 , 127 L.Ed.2d 87 (1994). [2] Although this court distinguished the pleading requirements in a transfer proceeding from a delinquency proceeding in In re A.A ., we resolved this issue in favor of allowing the use of the law of parties in the absence of a pleading in a delinquency proceeding in In re O.C .
discussed
Cited "but see"
In re A.C.
But see In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.l993)(noting that reliance on adult criminal cases and criminal procedural rules appears to conflict to some extent with Texas Family Code), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1078 , 114 S.Ct. 894 , 127 L.Ed.2d 87 (1994). .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Matter of J.I.G., a Child v. State
Code § 56.01(b) and In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex. 1993)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Matter of J.I.G., a Child v. State
Code § 56.01(b) and In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex. 1993)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Matter of N. G.-D.
Code § 51.17(a) and In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex. 1993)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
in Re I. G.
In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex. 1993) (except when in conflict with provision of Family Code, Texas Rules of Civil 8 Procedure govern juvenile proceedings).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dorsey, Brian Dwayne
C ODE A NN. § 51.17(a); In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex. 1993).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Dorsey
Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 51.17(a); In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Matter of I.L., a Juvenile
Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 51.17(a)(West 2008); In the Matter of M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993); In the Matter of M.P., 126 S.W.3d 228, 230 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
in Re J.C.L., a Juvenile
See In re Hall, 286 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tex. 2009) (“Although quasi-criminal in nature, proceedings in juvenile court are considered civil cases . . . .”); In re R.J.H., 79 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. 2002) (noting that the Texas Family Code governs juvenile delinquency proceedings in Texas and requires that the proceedings be conducted under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, except as to discovery, and the Texas Rules of Evidence applicable to criminal proceedings); In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex. 1993); Carrillo v. State, 480 S.W.2d 612, 615 (Tex. 1972); TEX.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re R.D.
In In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993) (per curiam opinion denying application for writ of error), we stated that, unlike the rule in criminal cases, in juvenile proceedings a motion for new trial is necessary to preserve a factual sufficiency challenge. 2 Unlike in In re M.R., however, R.D. did file a motion for new trial.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re RD
In In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993) (per curiam opinion denying application for writ of error), we stated that, unlike the rule in criminal cases, in juvenile proceedings a motion for new trial is necessary to preserve a factual sufficiency challenge. [2] Unlike in In re M.R ., however, R.D. did file a motion for new trial.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re C.J.
Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 51.17(a) (Vernon 1991); In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 365 (Tex.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1078 , 114 S.Ct. 894 , 127 L.Ed.2d 87 (1994); In re S.D.W., 811 S.W.2d 739, 749 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no pet.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re CJ
FAM.CODE ANN. § 51.17(a) (Vernon 1991); In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 365 (Tex.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1078 , 114 S.Ct. 894 , 127 L.Ed.2d 87 (1994); In re S.D.W., 811 S.W.2d 739, 749 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no pet.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Matter of C. J.
Code Ann. § 51.17(a) (Vernon 1991); In re M.R. , 858 S.W.2d 365, 365 (Tex. 1993), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 1078 , 114 S. Ct. 894 (1994); In re S.D.W. , 811 S.W.2d 739, 749 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no pet.).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Matter of Q.D.M.T.
In re M.R. , 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex. 1993); In re A.E.B. , 255 S.W.3d 338, 345 (Tex. App. C Dallas 2008, no pet.); In re D.T.C. , 30 S.W.3d 43, 51 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re A.E.B.
In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993) (per cu-riam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Matter of F. F. G.
In re M.R. , 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam); Davila v. State , 930 S.W.2d 641, 647 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1996, pet. ref'd).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Matter of F. F. G.
In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam); Davila v. State, 930 S.W.2d 641, 647 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1996, pet. ref’d).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re DJH
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
I do not agree that In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. *167 1078, 114 S.Ct. 894 , 127 L.Ed.2d 87 (1994) requires that a factual sufficiency claim in a juvenile case must be preserved by a motion for new trial, because when M.R. was decided we did not have jurisdiction to review factual sufficiency in criminal cases.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re D.J.H.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
I do not agree that In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993), cert, denied, 510 U.S. 1078 , 114 S.Ct. 894 , 127 L.Ed.2d 87 (1994) requires that a factual sufficiency claim in a juvenile case must be preserved by a motion for new trial, because when M.R. was decided we did not have jurisdiction to review factual sufficiency in criminal cases.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Matter of D.J.H.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
I do not agree that In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1078 , 114 S. Ct. 894 , 127 (1994) requires that a factual sufficiency claim in a juvenile case must be preserved by a motion for new trial, because when M.R. was decided we did not have jurisdiction to review factual sufficiency in criminal cases.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re KH
NOTES [1] In re J.K.R., 986 S.W.2d 278, 280-81 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1998, pet. denied); In re R.S.C., 940 S.W.2d 750, 751 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997, no writ); In re D.S., 921 S.W.2d 860, 861 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ); In re J.R., 907 S.W.2d 107, 109 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, no writ); C.E.J. v. State, 788 S.W.2d 849, 852 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990, writ denied); see In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex.1998) (recognizing consequences of adjudication of delinquency and loss of liberty by juvenile may be comparable to felony conviction); In re M.A.F., 966 S.W.2d 448, 450 (Tex.1998) (recognizing …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re K. H.
Under the authority of In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993), most courts of appeals require a motion for new trial raising a factual sufficiency challenge before the party may challenge the factual sufficiency of the evidence in a juvenile adjudication hearing.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Matter of J.B.M.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
In re M.R. , 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex. 1993), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 1078 (1994).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In re J.B.M.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1078 , 114 S.Ct. 894 , 127 L.Ed.2d 87 (1994).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re JBM
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1078 , 114 S.Ct. 894 , 127 L.Ed.2d 87 (1994).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Matter of J.B.M.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
In re M.R. , 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex. 1993), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 1078 (1994) .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re M.P.
Harm Analysis Although the Rules of Civil Procedure govern jury charges in juvenile proceedings when not in conflict with the Texas Family Code, the courts of appeals differ about whether to apply a civil harm analysis or a criminal harm analysis for jury charge error in juvenile cases. 4 See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 51.17(a); In the Matter of M.R., 858 S.W.2d at 366; In the Matter of A.A.B., 110 S.W.3d at 555-56 ; In the Matter of P.L.W., 851 S.W.2d at 386 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re MP
Harm Analysis Although the Rules of Civil Procedure govern jury charges in juvenile proceedings when not in conflict with the Texas Family Code, the courts of appeals differ about whether to apply a civil harm analysis or a criminal harm analysis for jury charge error in juvenile cases. [4] See *232 Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 51.17(a); In the Matter of M.R., 858 S.W.2d at 366; In the Matter of A.A.B., 110 S.W.3d at 555-56 ; In the Matter of P.L.W., 851 S.W.2d at 386 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Interest Of: M.F.
P. 324(b)(2); In re M.R. , 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex. 1993); In re J.M.S. , 43 S.W.3d 60, 62 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re JLH
XIV; Alvarado v. State, 912 S.W.2d 199, 206-207 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995) (citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072-73 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)). [2] Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 54.03(f) (Vernon Supp. 2001); In re M.M.R., 932 S.W.2d 112, 113 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1996, no pet.). [3] Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). [4] In re A.S., 954 S.W.2d 855, 858 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997, no pet.). [5] Id. [6] Id. at 860 . [7] Id. [8] In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993). [9] In re D.T.C., 30 S.W.3d 43 , 51 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 200…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re KCA
In In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993) (per curiam), cert. denied sub nom., M.R. v. Texas, 510 U.S. 1078 , 114 S.Ct. 894 , 127 L.Ed.2d 87 (1994), we concluded, based on the language of Title 3 of the Family Code, that the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply when they conflict with applicable provisions of the Family Code.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re K.C.A.
In In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993) (per curiam), cert. denied sub nom., M.R. v. Texas, 510 U.S. 1078 , 114 S.Ct. 894 , 127 L.Ed.2d 87 (1994), we concluded, based on the language of Title 3 of the Family Code, that the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply when they conflict with applicable provisions of the Family Code.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Matter of C. C.
P. 324(b)(2); In re M.R. , 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex. 1993); In re J.K.R., 986 S.W.2d 278, 282 (Tex. App.--Eastland 1998, pet. denied).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SDG v. State
(2×)
R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993), cert denied, 510 U.S. 1078 , 114 S.Ct. 894 , 127 L.Ed.2d 87 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re S.G.
E.g., In the Matter of M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993), cert, denied, 510 U.S. 1078 , 114 S.Ct. 894 , 127 L.Ed.2d 87 (1994). 2 We further agree that in civil cases this court lacks jurisdiction to review a trial court order granting a motion for a mistrial.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
S.D.G. v. State
(2×)
R, 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993), cert denied, 510 U.S. 1078 , 114 S.Ct. 894 , 127 L.Ed.2d 87 (1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Davila v. State
In the Matter of M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Direct Communications, Inc. v. Lunsford
(In Nuernberg , the motion for rehearing was overruled September 10, 1993.) DCI specifically pointed to the language which stated, “Individual items within the agency record may be introduced at trial, but they must be introduced independently and pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Evidence.” Nuern-berg, 858 S.W.2d at 365.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Matter of S. L. L.
Code § 51.17 (West 1986); e.g., In re M.R. , 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex. 1993), cert. denied , 114 S.Ct. 894 (1994) (juvenile must move for new trial to complain on appeal of factual insufficiency and juror misconduct).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
M.R.R. v. State
The Texas Supreme court recently reaffirmed the applicability of the civil rules of trial procedure in In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 894 , 127 L.Ed.2d 87 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MRR v. State
The Texas Supreme court recently reaffirmed the applicability of the civil rules of trial procedure in In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex.1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 894 , 127 L.Ed.2d 87 (1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
C.F. v. State
The Supreme Court of Texas has specifically addressed this issue in In the Matter of M.R., 858 S.W.2d at 365.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
CF v. State
The Supreme Court of Texas has specifically addressed this issue in In the Matter of M.R., 858 S.W.2d at 365.
cited
Cited "see"
Matter of T.V.T. v. the State of Texas
See In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex. 1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of M.R.
D-3583.
Texas Supreme Court.
Aug 26, 1993.
Per Curiam.
Published
Tim Curry, Lynn Allison, Charles M. Mallin, Betty Marshall, Fort Worth, for appellant.
[*366] Timothy A. Menikos, Arlington, Richard Lee Griffin, Fort Worth, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The issue here is the applicability of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to juvenile delinquency proceedings. The court of appeals concluded that juvenile proceedings are governed only as far as practicable by the rules of civil procedure. 846 S.W.2d 97 at 100. The court of appeals wrote that, because of the quasi-criminal nature of juvenile delinquency proceedings, the better practice would be to address factual sufficiency and juror misconduct complaints of juveniles despite their failure to file a motion for new trial. 846 S.W.2d at 101. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment adjudicating the juvenile a delinquent because the evidence was factually sufficient under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Since the discussion of whether the Rules of Civil Procedure applied was unnecessary to its judgment, we deny both applications for writ of error in this case.
Before 1973 we held that juvenile proceedings were governed "as far as practicable" by the rules of civil procedure. Brenan v. Court of Civil Appeals, Fourteenth Dist., 444 S.W.2d 290, 292 (Tex. 1968). In 1973, with the enactment of Title 3 of the Texas Family Code, however, the legislature replaced the "as far as practicable" limitation with the provision that "Except when in conflict with a provision of this title, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure govern proceedings under [Title 3]." TEX.FAM.CODE § 51.17. Nothing in Title 3 conflicts with the Rules of Civil Procedure requirement of motions for new trial as a prerequisite to assert evidentiary and procedural errors, including factual sufficiency and juror misconduct challenges. TEX. R.CIV.P. 324(b). We disapprove the court of appeals' holding that juveniles appealing delinquency judgments are exempt from this procedural requirement.
The court of appeals relied upon Bonham v. State, 680 S.W.2d 815, 819 (Tex. Crim.App.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 865, 106 S.Ct. 184, 88 L.Ed.2d 153 (1985) (factual sufficiency standard in adult criminal cases) in addressing the factual sufficiency challenge, and relied upon TEX.R.APP.P. 30(a) (no motion for new trial required to preserve error in adult criminal cases) in addressing the juror misconduct challenge in this juvenile delinquency case. Relying on adult criminal cases and criminal procedure rules appears to conflict at least to some extent with the express Family Code provision that the Rules of Civil Procedure apply. We neither approve nor disapprove the court of appeals language regarding the factual sufficiency and juror misconduct challenges. The error, if any, did not affect the disposition of the case, and granting writ to affirm the judgment is not necessary. TEX.R.APP.P. 81.