Aimee Delyn Halleman v. Edward Charles Halleman (2012)
green
· 47 citation events
across 1 courts.
Showing the 35 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201220192026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
In the Matter of the Marriage of Chad Schaefer and Amber Lynn Schaefer v. the State of Texas (2023)
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review “The family code permits the trial court to render a temporary order necessary for the preservation of the property and for the protection of the parties during an appeal, including an order for the payment of attorney’s fees and expenses.” Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 454 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.).
green
Manish Mehta v. Hannah Mehta (2023)
Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 452 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.); Boyd v. Boyd, 131 S.W.3d 605, 610 (Tex. App.—Fort 7 Worth 2004, no pet.).
green
in the Interest of B.C., a Child (2017)
Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 447 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.).
green
David Rice v. Melinda Rice (2023)
Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 452 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.).
green
in the Interest of A.C., a Minor Child (2022)
See In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d 611, 616 (Tex. 2007); Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 447 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.).
orig. proceeding
green
Ricky Don Dupree v. Vikki Yvonne Dupree (2021)
Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 452 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.).
green
S.L. v. S.L. (2020)
Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 452 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth 2012, no pet.).
green
in Re James Brent Mansfield (2019)
See id.; see also Rogers, 370 S.W.3d at 445 (“Assuming a clear abuse of discretion in a temporary order in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, mandamus may lie on the basis that there are no appellate remedies that are considered adequate.”); In re Garza, 153 S.W.3d 97, 100 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding) (“Mandamus is an appropriate means to challenge temporary orders pending appeal.”); cf. Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 455 (Tex. App.—Fort…
green
Donald Edmund Dyer v. Estela Trevino Dyer (2018)
See In re P.A.C., 498 S.W.3d 210, 214 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied); Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 447 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.).
green
Raul Rene Rodriguez v. Leticia Borrego (2016)
Id., citing Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 455 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 2012, no pet.); In re Merriam, 228 S.W.3d 413, 416 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 2007, orig. proceeding); In re Marriage of Edwards, No. 06–12–00016–CV, 2012 WL 4503413 , at *10 n.28 (Tex.App.--Texarkana Oct. 2, 2012, no pet.)(mem. op.).
green
Raul Rene Rodriguez v. Leticia Borrego (2016)
Id., citing Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 455 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.); In re Merriam, 228 S.W.3d 413, 416 (Tex.App.— Beaumont 2007, orig. proceeding); In re Marriage of Edwards, No. 06-12-00016-CV, 2012 WL 4503413 , at *10 n. 28 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Oct. 2, 2012, no pet.)(mem. op.).
green
in Re William Wiese (2015)
When a trial court’s temporary orders under section 109.001 of the Family Code require the immediate payment of attorney’s fees, review of the award “during 2 The appeal of the trial court’s final judgment in the modification proceeding is currently pending before this Court and has been assigned cause number 03-14-00799-CV. 2 the pending or imminent appeal does not provide an adequate appeal in conjunction with the final judgment of the case.” In re Jafarzadeh, No. 05-14-01…
green
in Re William Wiese (2015)
When a trial court’s temporary orders under section 109.001 of the Family Code require the immediate payment of attorney’s fees, review of the award “during the pending or imminent appeal does not provide an adequate appeal in conjunction with the final judgment of the case.” In re Jafarzadeh, No. 05-14-01576-CV, 2015 WL 72693 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 2, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); cf. Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 455 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet…
green
Guy Sparkman v. Microsoft Corporation, SupportSpace, Inc. as Agent for Microsoft Corp., Omar Franco, as Agent… (2015)
P. 44.1(a) (no judgment may be reversed on appeal on ground that trial court made error of law unless court of appeals concludes that error complained of probably caused the rendition of improper judgment); Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 452 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2012, no pet.) (appellate court may disregard immaterial findings as harmless).
green
Robert Samaniego v. Mary Samaniego (2014)
Schlueter v. Schlueter, 975 S.W.2d 584, 589 (Tex.1998); Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696, 698 (Tex. 1981); Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 452 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.).
green
Byron Earl Walker v. Sheryl Lee Walker (2014)
Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 447 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.).
green
Ruben Guadalupe Galindo v. Tanya Sue Galindo (2014)
“As long as there is a credible showing of the need for [appellate] attorney’s fees in the amount requested and the ability of the opposing spouse to meet that need, the trial court has authority by temporary orders to require payment of such fees.” Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 454 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.) (quoting Herschberg v. Herschberg, 994 S.W.2d 273, 279 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.)).
Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 447 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.). 3 The family code provides that “the court may grant a divorce without regard to fault if the marriage has become insupportable because of discord or conflict of personalities that destroys the legitimate ends of the marital relationship and prevents any reasonable expectation of reconciliation.” See Tex. Fam.
green
Jessica Jackson Hill v. Steven Hill (2014)
Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 452 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.).
green
in the Interest of A.K.M., a Child (2013)
In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d 611, 616 (Tex. 2007); Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990); Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 447 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.).
green
Larry Raiford Collier v. State (2013)
Id.; Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 447 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2012, no pet.).
Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex.1981); Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 452 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2012, no pet.); Monroe, 358 S.W.3d at 717 .
green
in the Interest of R.H., J.B., and T.B. (2013)
In re T.D.C., 91 S.W.3d 865, 872 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g). 6 From our review of the record, it appears that the trial court’s October 3, 2011 order is the first final order concerning the custody of the children. 5 Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 447 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.); see also Strong v. Strong, 350 S.W.3d 759, 765 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, pet. denied) (“The trial court is vested with broad discretion to determine which …
green
in the Interest of R.H., J.B., and T.B. (2013)
Halleman v. Halleman , 379 S.W.3d 443, 447 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.); see also Strong v. Strong , 350 S.W.3d 759, 765 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, pet. denied) (“The trial court is vested with broad discretion to determine which conservator will have the exclusive right to establish the child’s primary residence.”).
Halleman v. Halleman, No. 02-11-00184-CV, 2012 WL 3600001, at *10 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 23, 2012, no pet. h.); Love v. Bailey-Love, 217 S.W.3d 33, 36 (Tex. 27 The trial court found that the property division was just and right, irrespective of the characterization of any item of property as either community or separate.
green
Wendy Mincer v. Brian Mark Summers (2022)
See Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 452 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.); O’Carolan v. Hopper, 71 S.W.3d 529, 532 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.).
green
George Touponse v. Susan Touponse (2021)
See Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 452 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.); O’Carolan v. Hopper, 71 S.W.3d 529, 532 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.).
See Murff, 615 S.W.2d at 699 (in dividing the parties’ community estate, the court may consider the parties’ relative financial conditions); see also, e.g., Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 453 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.) (concluding the trial court’s division of the community estate did not constitute an abuse of discretion, the court noted that wife’s mother (1) purchased a home for wife, (2) made the home’s monthly mortgage payments, and (3) paid wife’s lega…
See Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 452 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.); Cooke Cnty.
green
in Re Troy Lee Christensen (2017)
Id. at *5; see Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 454 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.) (citing Halleman, 2011 WL 5247882 , at *4–5) (stating court’s conclusion that trial court abused its discretion by requiring real party in interest “to prepay” $95,000 into trial court’s registry).
green
in Re Miguel Zaragoza Fuentes (2016)
See Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 455 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2012, no pet.); In re Merriam, 228 S.W.3d 413, 416 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2007, orig. proceeding); In re Marriage of Edwards, No. 06-12-00016-CV, 2012 WL 4503413 , at *10 n. 28 (Tex.App.-Texarkana Oct. 2, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.).
green
in Re Miguel Zaragoza Fuentes (2016)
See Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 455 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.); In re Merriam, 228 S.W.3d 413, 416 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2007, orig. proceeding); In re Marriage of Edwards, No. 06–12–00016–CV, 2012 WL 4503413 , at *10 n. 28 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Oct. 2, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.).
green
Michael Monroe Bowers v. Angela Godby Bowers (2016)
See Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 456 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2012, no pet.); In re Merriam, 228 S.W.3d 413, 416 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2007, orig. proceeding); In re Marriage of Edwards, No. 06-12-00016-CV, 2012 WL 4503413 , at *10 n. 28 (TexApp.-Texarkana Oct. 2, 2012, no pet.)(mem. op.).
green
in the Interest Of: C.E.C. (2015)
See Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 453 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.) (overruling appellant’s complaint property division was punitive because a reasonable basis supported disproportionate property division).
green
In the Matter of the MARRIAGE OF C.A.S. AND D.P.S. (2013)
See Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 453 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2012, no pet.) (overruling appellant’s complaint trial court used property division to punish her because reasonable basis supported disproportionate property division).