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 2 courts 2008–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Egna Bishop Villarreal v. Guillermo Gonzalez Guerragreen1 sentence2026Id.; see AME & FE Investments, Ltd. v. NEC 1 All pending motions, including Curtis’s motion for temporary orders to decrease the amount of the supersedeas bond, are dismissed as moot. 2 Because our decision turns on whether there is an informal marriage between the parties, we look only to the findings and conclusions relating to that issue. -3- 04-24-00801-CV Networks, LLC, 2025 WL 2715484 , at *2 n.2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio September 24, 2025, no pet.) (citing Villarreal v. Guerra, 446 S.W.3d 404, 414 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of the MARRIAGE OF C.A.S. AND D.P.S.green1 sentence2026Thus, “[t]he controlling issue is whether the circumstances of the particular case require the party to guess at the reasons for the trial court’s decision.” In re Marriage of C.A.S. and D.P.S., 405 S.W.3d 373, 382 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bossier Chrysler-Dodge II, Inc. v. Rauschenberg
green
2 sentences2012Id. 2012Id. | 4 | 2008–2012 |
Curtis v. State
green
2 sentences2008Curtis v. State , 209 S.W.3d 688 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2006), rev'd & remanded , 238 S.W.3d 376 (Tex. Crim. 2008Curtis v. State, 209 S.W.3d 688 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006), rev'd & remanded, 238 S.W.3d 376 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
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.