green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
11.3 score
“except as otherwise provided by this title, proceedings shall be as in civil cases generally.”
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
in the Interest of J.A.B., a Child
except as otherwise provided by this title, proceedings shall be as in civil cases generally.
discussed
Cited "see"
in the Interest of L.J.H., a Child
See In re B.L.D. 113 S.W. 3d 340, 347 (Tex. 2003), cert. denied 541 U.S. 945 (2004); In re C.A.P., No. 04–12–00553–CV, 2013 WL 749825 , at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 27, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (section 107.021(a–1) reviewed for abuse of discretion).
discussed
Cited "see"
Diep Tuyet Vo and Van Ba Nguyen v. Karen Vu
See In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 350 (Tex. 2003) (noting fundamental error is “a discredited doctrine” and should be used only in rare circumstances not present here), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 945 (2004); see also Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572, 577 (Tex. 2006) (defining fundamental error “as those instances in which error directly and adversely affects the interest of the public generally . . . or instances in which the record affirmatively and conclusively shows that the court rendering the judgment was without jurisdiction of the subject matter”). 10 matter-of-law issues …
cited
Cited "see"
in the Interest of N.A., Minor Child
See In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 348 (Tex. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 945 (2004).
cited
Cited "see"
in the Interest of V.L.A. and E.M.C., Children
See generally In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340 , 349–50 (Tex. 2003) (holding preservation requirements apply in termination cases), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 945 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
Curtis R. Francis v. Deborah Ford and Danny Horton
See In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 352 (Tex. 2003) (―The phrase ‗due process,‘ although incapable of precise definition, expresses the requirement of fundamental fairness.‖) (citing Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 24 , 101 S. Ct. 2153, 2158 (1981)), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 945 (2004); see Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S. Ct. 893, 903 (1976) (identifying factors to be balanced to determine if person has received due process under Fourteenth Amendment).
discussed
Cited "see"
Curtis R. Francis v. Deborah Ford and Danny Horton
See In re B.L.D ., 113 S.W.3d 340, 352 (Tex. 2003) (“The phrase ‘due process,’ although incapable of precise definition, expresses the requirement of fundamental fairness.”) ( citing Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Servs ., 452 U.S. 18, 24 , 101 S. Ct. 2153, 2158 (1981)), cert. denied , 541 U.S. 945 (2004); see Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S. Ct. 893, 903 (1976) (identifying factors to be balanced to determine if person has received due process under Fourteenth Amendment).
discussed
Cited "see"
Joel A. Ramsey and Marla K. Ramsey v. James R. Spray and Marianne Spray
See In re B.L.D. , 113 S.W.3d 340, 350 (Tex. 2003) (stating civil doctrine of fundamental error is “discredited” and is only recognized “in rare instances” when the record shows a jurisdictional defect or when certain types of error are committed in juvenile delinquency cases), cert. denied , 541 U.S. 945 (2004); see also Pirtle v. Gregory , 629 S.W.2d 919 , 919–20 (Tex. 1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Walker v. Texas Department of Family & Protective Services
(2×)
See In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 352-54 (Tex.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 945 , 124 S.Ct. 1674 , 158 L.Ed.2d 371 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
Astoria Industries of Iowa, Inc. v. SNF, Inc.
See 113 S.W.3d 340 , 349 (Tex.2003) (holding that an appellate court generally will decide constitutional questions only when it cannot resolve issues on nonconstitutional grounds), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 945 , 124 S.Ct. 1674 , 158 L.Ed.2d 371 (2004).
cited
Cited "see"
in the Interest of G.C.F., a Child
See In re B.L.D. , 113 S.W.3d 340, 354 (Tex. 2003), cert. denied , 541 U.S. 945 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
Astoria Industries of Iowa, Inc. v. SNF Inc. D/B/A Brand FX Body Company
See 113 S.W.3d 340 , 349 (Tex. 2003) (holding that an appellate court generally will decide constitutional questions only when it cannot resolve issues on nonconstitutional grounds), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 945 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
in the Interest of D.D.S., a Child
See In re B.L.D. , 113 S.W.3d 340, 342-43 (Tex. 2003) (“[I]n deciding whether there is a conflict of interest between parents opposing termination in a single lawsuit, the trial court must determine whether there is a substantial risk that the appointed counsel’s obligations to one parent would materially and adversely affect his or her obligations to the other parent.”), cert. denied , 541 U.S. 945 (2004). 7: The hearsay regarding appellant’s manipulation of his mother was the only evidence that appellant’s trial counsel consistently objected to.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lakota Energy Limited Partnership v. Merit Management Partners I, L.P. Merit Energy Partners III, L.P. And Merit Energy Company, LLC
Preservation requirements “are technical, but not trivial” and protect “important prudential considerations.” Burbage v. Burbage, 447 S.W.3d 249, 258 (Tex. 2014); see also In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 350 (Tex. 2003) (explaining underpinnings and importance of preservation rules), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 945 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
in Re Benevis, LLC, Dentistry of Brownsville, P.C., and Kool Smiles, P.C.
Spears, 797 S.W.2d at 656 . 11 Id.; see also In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340 , 346 n. 5 [5] The relators argue that disqualification was improper (Tex.2003) (discussing waiver for joint representation), because V & E obtained valid oral and written waivers cert. denied, 541 U.S. 945 , 124 S.Ct. 1674 , 158 L.Ed.2d before appearing in this lawsuit on the relators' behalf.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
in the Interest of D.W., T.W., and S.G., Children
App. P. 33.1(a). 7: Bushell v. Dean , 803 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1991) (op. on reh’g). 8: In re Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d 278, 284 (Tex. 2000) (holding facial constitutional challenge based on Separation of Powers Clause not properly considered on appeal where not raised in trial court); see In re R.B. , 225 S.W.3d 798 , 802 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (holding constitutional challenge based on facial invalidity of statute in parental termination case waived when not raised in trial court); see also In re B.L.D. , 113 S.W.3d 340 , 354–55 (Tex. 2003) (holding courts of appeals must not ret…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re DW
P. 33.1(a). [7] Bushell v. Dean, 803 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1991) (op. on reh'g). [8] In re Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d 278, 284 (Tex.2000) (holding facial constitutional challenge based on Separation of Powers Clause not properly considered on appeal where not raised in trial court); see In re R.B., 225 S.W.3d 798, 802 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (holding constitutional challenge based on facial invalidity of statute in parental termination case waived when not raised in trial court); see also In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 354-55 (Tex.2003) (holding courts of appeals must not retreat from error p…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
in the Interest of D.W., T.W., and S.G., Children
In re Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d 278, 284 (Tex.2000) (holding facial constitutional challenge based on Separation of Powers Clause not properly considered on appeal where not raised in trial court); see In re R.B., 225 S.W.3d 798, 802 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (holding constitutional challenge based on facial invalidity of statute in parental termination case waived when not raised in trial court); see also In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 354-55 (Tex.2003) (holding courts of appeals must not retreat from error preservation standards to review unpreserved error in parental rights termination case…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.
Id.; see also In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340 , 346 n. 5 (Tex.2003) (discussing waiver for joint representation), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 945 , 124 S.Ct. 1674 , 158 L.Ed.2d 371 (2004). 12 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Soto
v.
Phillips, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility
v.
Phillips, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility
03-8452.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 22, 2004.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Texas (1)
SOTO
v.
PHILLIPS, SUPERINTENDENT, GREEN HAVEN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.
No. 03-8452.
Supreme Court of United States.
March 22, 2004.
1
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 78 Fed. Appx. 760.