Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
42 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re UPgreen2 sentences2018In re U.P., 105 S.W.3d at 230. 2018In re U.P., 105 S.W.3d at 230. | 16 | 21 |
in the Interest of D.R.A. and A.F., Childrengreen2 sentences2024In re 6 L.C.L., 599 S.W.3d 79 , 86–87 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.) (en banc); In re D.R.A., 374 S.W.3d 528, 531 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.). 2023In re L.C.L., 599 S.W.3d 79 , 86–87 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.) (en banc); In re D.R.A., 374 S.W.3d 528, 531 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.). 4 Because only one ground is needed for termination, we need not address Mother’s arguments challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for the trial court’s finding under subsection (O). | 6 | 13 |
In Re SMLgreen2 sentences2014See In re S.M.L., 171 S.W.3d 472, 480 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet). 2013See In re S.M.L., 171 S.W.3d 472, 480 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet). | 2 | 6 |
In Re RRgreen2 sentences2024In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam); In re I.I.T., 648 S.W.3d 467 , 476 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2021, no pet.). 2024In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam); In re I.I.T., 648 S.W.3d 467 , 476 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2021, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
in the Interest of E.D., Childrengreen1 sentence2019See In re E.D., 419 S.W.3d at 617 . | 1 | 1 |
Vasquez v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Servicesgreen1 sentence2018Vasquez v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 190 S.W.3d 189, 196 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). 23 A consideration of the Holley factors supports the trial court’s determination that termination of J.V.J.’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re SN
green
2 sentences2012In re S.N., 287 S.W.3d at 191 . 2012In re S.N., 287 S.W.3d at 191 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
In the Interest of E.R.W.
green
1 sentence2019Code Ann. § 263.307 (b) (listing factors to consider in evaluating parents’ willingness and ability to provide the child with a safe environment); In re E.R.W., 528 S.W.3d at 266 . 16 Courts apply a strong presumption that the best interest of the children is served by keeping the children with their natural parents and the burden is on the Department to rebut that presumption. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.