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 1988–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Holley v. Adamsgreen1 sentence2025See Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 , 371–72 (Tex. 1976);2 TEX. | 1 | 1 |
In Re RRgreen1 sentence2023Best Interest Finding as to Mother “[T]here is a strong presumption that the best interest of a child is served by keeping the child with a parent.” In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 116 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). | 1 | 1 |
Brad Lyle Bokemeyer v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Bokemeyer v. State, 355 S.W.3d 199, 203 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); Alexander v. State, 919 S.W.2d 756, 767 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1996, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Alexander v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Bokemeyer v. State, 355 S.W.3d 199, 203 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); Alexander v. State, 919 S.W.2d 756, 767 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1996, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Longoria v. Texaco, Inc.green2 sentences1988Compare, Houston News Co. v. Shavers, 64 S.W.2d 384, 386 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1933, writ ref’d), and Longoria v. Texaco, Inc., 649 S.W.2d 332 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1983, no writ) (where the evidence rebutting the presumption was so clear and conclusive that it established the non-business purpose as a matter of law). 1988Compare, Houston News Co. v. Shavers, 64 S.W.2d 384, 386 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1933, writ ref'd), and Longoria v. Texaco, Inc., 649 S.W.2d 332 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1983, no writ) (where the evidence rebutting the presumption was so clear and conclusive that it established the non-business purpose as a matter of law). | 1 | 1 |
Houston News Co. v. Shaversgreen2 sentences1988Compare, Houston News Co. v. Shavers, 64 S.W.2d 384, 386 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1933, writ ref’d), and Longoria v. Texaco, Inc., 649 S.W.2d 332 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1983, no writ) (where the evidence rebutting the presumption was so clear and conclusive that it established the non-business purpose as a matter of law). 1988Compare, Houston News Co. v. Shavers, 64 S.W.2d 384, 386 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1933, writ ref'd), and Longoria v. Texaco, Inc., 649 S.W.2d 332 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1983, no writ) (where the evidence rebutting the presumption was so clear and conclusive that it established the non-business purpose as a matter of law). | 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 Estate of Jones
green
1 sentence2008Because we have found the evidence rebutting the presumption of revocation was legally insufficient, it is not necessary for this Court to decide Brett's remaining issue.7 There is error apparent on the face of the record; we sustain Brett's first point of error. 6 We note Shelli also cites In re Estate of Jones, 197 S.W.3d 894 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2006, pet. denied), for the proposition that the evidence was sufficient to rebut the presumption of revocation. | 1 | 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.