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.
5 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2019 0 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 BGDgreen1 sentence2019Third, section 153.432 does not apply to a grandparent’s intervention into an existing SAPCRs. 26 And fourth, section 153.433 also does not apply because it is not a statute that gives grandparents standing to be heard on a SAPCR claim. 27 23 Id. §§ 153.432, .433 (West 2014). 24 See id. § 153.432(a) (providing that a grandparent may file an original suit or request to modify to seek possession or access to a grandchild); see also In re J.R.W., No. 05-15-01479-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 6831 , at *10 (Tex. App.— Dallas July 20, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.). 25 Id. § 153.432(c). 26 Id. § 153.432( | 1 | 1 |
In Re JAJgreen1 sentence2018In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d 611, 616 (Tex. 2007); In re S.T., 508 S.W.3d 482, 489 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2015, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
in the Interest of S.T., a Childgreen1 sentence2018In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d 611, 616 (Tex. 2007); In re S.T., 508 S.W.3d 482, 489 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2015, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
In Re PDMgreen1 sentence2009See generally Tex. Fam.Code Ann. ch. 15B (providing for possession of or access to a child only to conservators of the child); see also In re P.D.M., 117 S.W.3d 453, 455 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. denied) (en banc) (noting party’s initial right to possession of a child is governed by family code chapter 153). | 1 | 1 |
Mumma v. Aguirregreen1 sentence2003Lewelling v. Lewelling , 796 S.W.2d 164, 166 (Tex. 1990); Mumma v. Aguirre , 364 S.W.2d 220, 221 (Tex. 1963). | 1 | 1 |
Lewelling v. Lewellinggreen1 sentence2003Lewelling v. Lewelling , 796 S.W.2d 164, 166 (Tex. 1990); Mumma v. Aguirre , 364 S.W.2d 220, 221 (Tex. 1963). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wittie v. Skees
green
1 sentence1992According to the comments following Rule 245, the rule was amended effective September 1, 1990, specifically “to harmonize a first time nonjury setting with the time for jury demand, and to set a more realistic notice for trial.” 1 In view of the stated purpose of the 1990 amendment to Rule 245, Relator’s request for a jury trial on the final conservatorship hearing will therefore be deemed timely, triggering the presumption that the jury demand was made within a “reasonable time.” See Wittie v. Skees, 786 S.W.2d at 466 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.