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 2001–2014 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 STgreen2 sentences2008Because the court took judicial notice of the prior proceedings, we will examine the testimony in the trial record to evaluate whether the court abused its discretion by finding Donald's first point to be frivolous. [7] See In re S.T., 239 S.W.3d 452, 464 (Tex.App.-Waco 2007, order) (Gray, C.J., dissenting). 2008Because the court took judicial notice of the prior proceedings, we will examine the testimony in the trial record to evaluate whether the court abused its discretion by finding Donald’s first point to be frivolous. 7 See In re S.T., 239 S.W.3d 452, 464 (Tex.App.-Waco 2007, order) (Gray, C.J., dissenting). | 2 | 2 |
Fillingim v. Fillingimgreen1 sentence2014See id. 4 Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Judith’s oral request that the 2002 QDRO be amended to remove the November 8, 2001 date and to award her 57.5% of the retirement benefit as of the date of Donald’s retirement. 5 QJSA Judith next complains the trial court erred by granting Donald’s motion and amending the 2002 QDRO to state *503 Judith was Donald’s surviving spouse only for purposes of the QPSA. | 1 | 1 |
N.P. v. Methodist Hospitalgreen1 sentence2008With some exceptions not here applicable, this Court has jurisdiction over an appeal from only a final judgment. 2 Sanders v. City of Grapevine, 218 S.W.3d 772, 776 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, pet. denied); N.P. v. Methodist Hosp., 190 S.W.3d 217, 225 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied); see also Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.2001) (generally, “an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment”). | 1 | 1 |
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.red1 sentence2008With some exceptions not here applicable, this Court has jurisdiction over an appeal from only a final judgment. 2 Sanders v. City of Grapevine, 218 S.W.3d 772, 776 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, pet. denied); N.P. v. Methodist Hosp., 190 S.W.3d 217, 225 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied); see also Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.2001) (generally, “an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment”). | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. City of Grapevinegreen1 sentence2008With some exceptions not here applicable, this Court has jurisdiction over an appeal from only a final judgment. 2 Sanders v. City of Grapevine, 218 S.W.3d 772, 776 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, pet. denied); N.P. v. Methodist Hosp., 190 S.W.3d 217, 225 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied); see also Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.2001) (generally, “an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Marriage of Daughertygreen1 sentence2001In re Marriage of Daugherty, 42 S.W.3d 331, 335 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2001, no pet.h.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.