How cited: In Re JS · Go Syfert

In Re JS (1999)

green · 29 citation events across 1 courts. Showing the 13 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199920122026
green In Re KT (2003)
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
This and other courts of appeals have held that, although review of a juvenile disposition order is conducted under an abuse of discretion standard, the trial court's findings of fact are reviewed for legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. *73 See, e.g., In re of K.R., 82 S.W.3d 660, 661 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, no pet.); In re J.S., 993 S.W.2d 370, 372 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.); In re A.S., 954 S.W.2d 855, 861 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997, no pet.).
green In the Matter of K.T. (2003)
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
See, e.g., In re of K.R., 82 S.W.3d 660, 661 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, no pet.); In re J.S., 993 S.W.2d 370, 372 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.); In re A.S., 954 S.W.2d 855, 861 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · signal: cf.
B.R., 2020 WL 3969556 , at *7 (upholding trial court’s order committing juvenile to TJJD despite “some qualitative improvement” in juvenile’s behavior at home pending disposition (citing In re J.M., 433 S.W.3d 792 , 794–96 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.))); cf. In re J.S., 993 S.W.2d 370, 375 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.) (finding abuse of discretion when the juvenile “[c]learly . . . did more than exhibit temporary remorsefulness because he was caught”).
green In re E.K.G. (2016)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
In re K.R., 82 S.W.3d 660, 661 (Tex,App.-San Antonio 2002, no pet.); In re J.S., 993 S.W.2d 370, 372 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
In re J.S. , 993 S.W.2d 370, 372 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.); Doyle v. Doyle , 955 S.W.2d 478, 479 (Tex. App.-Austin 1997, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
See In re A.E.E. , 89 S.W.3d 250, 256 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.); In re J.D.P. , 85 S.W.3d 420, 426 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, no pet.); In re J.S. , 993 S.W.2d 370, 372 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.); In re J.R. , 907 S.W.2d 107, 110 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, no writ).
green In Re AEE (2002)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
In re J.S., 993 S.W.2d 370, 372 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.); Doyle v. Doyle, 955 S.W.2d 478, 479 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
In re J.S., 993 S.W.2d 370, 372 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.); Doyle v. Doyle, 955 S.W.2d 478, 479 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997, no pet.).
green In re K.R. (2002)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
In re J.S., 993 S.W.2d 370, 372 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, no. pet.).
green in the Matter of K.R. (2002)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
In re J.S. , 993 S.W.2d 370, 372 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1999, no. pet.).
Cited (see also) · Tex. App. · signal: see also
See In re E.K.G., 487 S.W.3d at 675– 76; see also In re J.S., 993 S.W.2d 370, 374 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.) (concluding that the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing juvenile to TJJD where “[t]here was no evidence that [juvenile’s] father could not provide the quality of care and level of support and supervision which [juvenile] needed”); In re A.S., 954 S.W.2d 855, 863 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, no pet.) (same where the only evidence consisted of the…
Cited (see also) · Tex. App. · signal: see also
See In re E.K.G., 487 S.W.3d at 675– 76; see also In re J.S., 993 S.W.2d 370, 374 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.) (concluding that the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing juvenile to TJJD where “[t]here was no evidence that [juvenile’s] father could not provide the quality of care and level of support and supervision which [juvenile] needed”); In re A.S., 954 S.W.2d 855, 863 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, no pet.) (same where the only evidence consisted 6 of t…
Cited · Tex. App. · signal: see
See In re J.S ., 993 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1999, no pet.) (remanding for new disposition hearing where evidence did not support findings made under section 54.04(i)); In re K.L.C ., 972 S.W.2d 203, 206-07 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1998, no pet.) (remanding for new disposition hearing where no evidence was introduced that any effort was made to find an alternative to TYC commitment); In re A.S. , 954 S.W.2d 855, 862-63 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1997, no pet.) (remanding for…