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.
7 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Director of the Dallas County Child Protective Services Unit of the Texas Department of Human Services v. Bowlinggreen2 sentences2006Unit v. Bowling, 833 S.W.2d 730, 733 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, no writ); In re B.R., 822 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1991, writ denied); Ziegler v. Tarrant County Child Welfare Unit, 680 S.W.2d 674, 678-79 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (all illustrating breadth of evidence relevant to best interest).7 We need not address whether section 153.004(b)’s presumption shifts the burden of proof or merely production because, even under Linda’s view of it, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing her instruction. 2006Unit v. Bowling , 833 S.W.2d 730, 733 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1992, no writ); In re B.R. , 822 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1991, writ denied); Ziegler v. Tarrant County Child Welfare Unit , 680 S.W.2d 674, 678-79 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (all illustrating breadth of evidence relevant to best interest). (7) We need not address whether section 153.004(b)'s presumption shifts the burden of proof or merely production because, even under Linda's view of it, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing her instruction. | 2 | 2 |
Ziegler v. Tarrant County Child Welfare Unitgreen2 sentences2006Unit v. Bowling, 833 S.W.2d 730, 733 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, no writ); In re B.R., 822 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1991, writ denied); Ziegler v. Tarrant County Child Welfare Unit, 680 S.W.2d 674, 678-79 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (all illustrating breadth of evidence relevant to best interest).7 We need not address whether section 153.004(b)’s presumption shifts the burden of proof or merely production because, even under Linda’s view of it, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing her instruction. 2006Unit v. Bowling , 833 S.W.2d 730, 733 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1992, no writ); In re B.R. , 822 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1991, writ denied); Ziegler v. Tarrant County Child Welfare Unit , 680 S.W.2d 674, 678-79 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (all illustrating breadth of evidence relevant to best interest). (7) We need not address whether section 153.004(b)'s presumption shifts the burden of proof or merely production because, even under Linda's view of it, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing her instruction. | 2 | 2 |
Matter of BRgreen2 sentences2006Unit v. Bowling, 833 S.W.2d 730, 733 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, no writ); In re B.R., 822 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1991, writ denied); Ziegler v. Tarrant County Child Welfare Unit, 680 S.W.2d 674, 678-79 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (all illustrating breadth of evidence relevant to best interest).7 We need not address whether section 153.004(b)’s presumption shifts the burden of proof or merely production because, even under Linda’s view of it, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing her instruction. 2006Unit v. Bowling , 833 S.W.2d 730, 733 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1992, no writ); In re B.R. , 822 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1991, writ denied); Ziegler v. Tarrant County Child Welfare Unit , 680 S.W.2d 674, 678-79 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (all illustrating breadth of evidence relevant to best interest). (7) We need not address whether section 153.004(b)'s presumption shifts the burden of proof or merely production because, even under Linda's view of it, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing her instruction. | 2 | 2 |
In Re SEKgreen1 sentence2020“The legislature did not express its intent to include the parental presumption or the section 153.004(b) domestic violence presumption in chapter 156 modification cases, although it did express its intent regarding modifications where a conservator has been convicted of child abuse or family violence.” In re S.E.K., 294 S.W.3d 926, 929 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied) (citing Tex. Fam. | 1 | 1 |
Sarah Lansden Baker v. Mark Mitchell Bakergreen1 sentence2016See Baker v. Baker, 469 S.W.3d 269 , 275–76 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting TEX. | 1 | 1 |
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co.green1 sentence2005See id. ' 153.004(e) . | 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 VLK
green
2 sentences2009V.L.K., 24 S.W.3d at 343-44 . 2009V.L.K., 24 S.W.3d at 343-44 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
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.