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.
33 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2024 6 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 AVgreen2 sentences2024See In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003); In re F.B.C.L., No. 04-20-00477-CV, 2021 WL 1649221 , at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 28, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Only one termination ground—in addition to a best interest finding—is necessary to affirm a termination judgment on appeal.”). 2022See In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003); see also In re Z.M.M., 577 S.W.3d at 542 (explaining that only one statutory ground is required to terminate parental rights). | 19 | 29 |
in the Interest of D.J.H., a Childgreen2 sentences2024See In re D.J.H., 381 S.W.3d 606, 611-12 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.) (explaining that when the trial court terminates the parent-child relationship on multiple grounds under section 161.001(1), we may affirm on any one ground because, in addition to finding that termination is in the child’s best interest, only one predicate violation under section 161.001(1) is necessary to support a termination decree). - 12 - COUNSEL COMPENSATION Finally, Melissa F.’s appointed appellate counsel “requests that this court order that he be compensated for his services in excess of the maximum out-of 2024See In re D.J.H., 381 S.W.3d 606, 611-12 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.) (explaining that when the trial court terminates the parent-child relationship on multiple grounds under section 161.001(1), we may affirm on any one ground because, in addition to finding that termination is in the child’s best interest, only one predicate violation under section 161.001(1) is necessary to support a termination decree). - 16 - See TEX. | 4 | 4 |
In Re EAKgreen2 sentences2010See In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003); In re E.A.K ., 192 S.W.3d 133, 151 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (“Because we find that there was legally sufficient evidence to support one of the predicate findings for termination of [the father’s] parental rights, we need not address the sufficiency of the evidence relating to other predicate findings.”). 2010See In re A.V. , 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003); In re E.A.K. , 192 S.W.3d 133, 151 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied). | 3 | 3 |
in the Interest of Z.M.M., a Childgreen1 sentence2022See In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003); see also In re Z.M.M., 577 S.W.3d at 542 (explaining that only one statutory ground is required to terminate parental rights). | 1 | 1 |
In Re JMSgreen1 sentence2014Id. -3- 04-14-00238-CV Smith, 804 S.W.2d 509, 510 (Tex. 1991); In re J.M.S., 43 S.W.3d 60, 62 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Cecil v. Smithgreen1 sentence2014Id. -3- 04-14-00238-CV Smith, 804 S.W.2d 509, 510 (Tex. 1991); In re J.M.S., 43 S.W.3d 60, 62 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.