Stone standard in Texas

2019Although the father referenced the relevant Stone factors in his request, he failed to provide any factual information showing why his interest in appearing outweighed the impact on the correctional system: “the only pertinent information contained in the request was that he was located in Rosharon, Texas, more than 200 miles from the trial court.” Id.

2019Although the father referenced the relevant Stone factors in his request, he failed to provide any factual information showing why his interest in appearing outweighed the impact on the correctional system: “the only pertinent information contained in the request was that he was located in Rosharon, Texas, more than 200 miles from the trial court.” Id.

1999See Stone v. State , 823 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, pet ref'd untimely filed); see also Clewis , 922 S.W.2d 126 (adopting Stone test).

1998See Stone v. State , 823 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, pet. ref'd untimely filed); see also Clewis, 922 S.W.2d 126 (adopting Stone test).

1999See Stone v. State , 823 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, pet ref'd untimely filed); see also Clewis , 922 S.W.2d 126 (adopting Stone test).

1998See Stone v. State , 823 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, pet. ref'd untimely filed); see also Clewis, 922 S.W.2d 126 (adopting Stone test).

2012See In the Interest of Z.L.T ., 124 S.W.3d at 166 (trial court did not abuse discretion in denying bench warrant where inmate listed Stone factors but failed to provide factual information showing how his interest in appearing outweighed impact on correctional system); In the Interest of A.W. , 302 S.W.3d at 929-30 (despite strong showing regarding inmate's claims and testimony, in absence of factual showing concerning transportation and safety, trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for bench warrant); In the Interest of D.D.J. , 136 S.W.3d at 312 (trial court did not abus

2012See In the Interest of Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d at 166 (trial court did not abuse discretion in denying bench warrant where inmate listed Stone factors but failed to provide factual information showing how his interest in appearing outweighed impact on correctional system); In the Interest of A.W., 302 S.W.3d at 929–30 (despite strong showing 6 regarding inmate’s claims and testimony, in absence of factual showing concerning transportation and safety, trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for bench warrant); In the Interest of D.D.J., 136 S.W.3d at 312 (trial court did not abuse

2015Ringer v. Kimball, 274 S.W.3d 865,868 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).

2015Ringer v. Kimball, 274 S.W.3d 865,868 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).

2012Even assuming the matters contained in Martinez's answer are "substantial claims" and that because the issues of child support, possession, and access are contested, his presence would be necessary for credibility determinations, see In the Interest of A.W. , 302 S.W.3d at 929-30 , on the whole, Martinez did not provide sufficient factual information to enable the trial court to balance all of the Stone factors.

2012Even assuming the matters contained in Martinez's answer are "substantial claims" and that because the issues of child support, possession, and access are contested, his presence would be necessary for credibility determinations, see In the Interest of A.W. , 302 S.W.3d at 929-30 , on the whole, Martinez did not provide sufficient factual information to enable the trial court to balance all of the Stone factors.

2007In re Z.L.T. , 124 S.W.3d 163, 165 (Tex. 2003) (referring to factors to determine whether to issue a bench warrant as articulated in Stone v. Morris , 546 F.2d 730, 735-36 (7th Cir. 1976)).

2007In re Z.L.T. , 124 S.W.3d 163, 165 (Tex. 2003) (referring to factors to determine whether to issue a bench warrant as articulated in Stone v. Morris , 546 F.2d 730, 735-36 (7th Cir. 1976)).

2004Villarreal v. State, 935 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996).

2004Villa rreal v. State , 935 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tex. Crim.

1994Compare Williams v. State, 848 S.W.2d 915, 916-17 (Tex.App.— Texarkana 1993, no pet.) (adopting the Stone standard) with Crouch v. State, 858 S.W.2d 599, 601 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1993, pet. ref'd) (rejecting the Stone standard) and Mukes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 571, 573-574 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no pet.) (rejecting the Stone standard).

1994Compare Williams v. State, 848 S.W.2d 915, 916-17 (Tex.App.— Texarkana 1993, no pet.) (adopting the Stone standard) with Crouch v. State, 858 S.W.2d 599, 601 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1993, pet. ref'd) (rejecting the Stone standard) and Mukes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 571, 573-574 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no pet.) (rejecting the Stone standard).

2021In fact, the only pertinent information contained in the request was that he was located in Rosharon, Texas, more than 200 miles from the trial court.”); see also Interest of K.H., No. 02-19-00247-CV, 2019 WL 6248557 , at *15 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 22, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding father failed to carry burden to demonstrate his right to appear at trial where bench warrant motion provided no other factual information other than fact he was “presently confined in the Tarrant County Jail located at 100 N. Lamar St., Fort Worth, Texas” and that “necessity exists for the issuance of a

2021In fact, the only pertinent information contained in the request was that he was located in Rosharon, Texas, more than 200 miles from the trial court.”); see also Interest of K.H., No. 02-19-00247-CV, 2019 WL 6248557 , at *15 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 22, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding father failed to carry burden to demonstrate his right to appear at trial where bench warrant motion provided no other factual information other than fact he was “presently confined in the Tarrant County Jail located at 100 N. Lamar St., Fort Worth, Texas” and that “necessity exists for the issuance of a

2021In fact, the only pertinent information contained in the request was that he was located in Rosharon, Texas, more than 200 miles from the trial court.”); see also Interest of K.H., No. 02-19-00247-CV, 2019 WL 6248557 , at *15 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 22, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding father failed to carry burden to demonstrate his right to appear at trial where bench warrant motion provided no other factual information other than fact he was “presently confined in the Tarrant County Jail located at 100 N. Lamar St., Fort Worth, Texas” and that “necessity exists for the issuance of a

2021In fact, the only pertinent information contained in the request was that he was located in Rosharon, Texas, more than 200 miles from the trial court.”); see also Interest of K.H., No. 02-19-00247-CV, 2019 WL 6248557 , at *15 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 22, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding father failed to carry burden to demonstrate his right to appear at trial where bench warrant motion provided no other factual information other than fact he was “presently confined in the Tarrant County Jail located at 100 N. Lamar St., Fort Worth, Texas” and that “necessity exists for the issuance of a

2021See Amigos Meat Distribs., L.P. v. Guzman, 526 S.W.3d 511, 523 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) 9 Thompson listed the Stone factors in his request, he failed to provide any factual information showing why his interest in appearing outweighed the impact on the correctional system.

2021See Amigos Meat Distribs., L.P. v. Guzman, 526 S.W.3d 511, 523 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) 9 Thompson listed the Stone factors in his request, he failed to provide any factual information showing why his interest in appearing outweighed the impact on the correctional system.

2020See Helena Chem., 47 S.W.3d at 495 ; Koenig, 497 S.W.3d at 598 .

2020P. 91a.2 (“A motion to dismiss must state that it is made pursuant to this rule, must identify each cause of action to which it is addressed, and must state specifically the reasons the cause of action has no basis in law, no basis in fact, or both.”); AC Interests, 543 S.W.3d at 706 (quoting Rule 91a); Guillory v. Seaton, LLC, 470 S.W.3d 237, 245 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (same). - 10 - 04-19-00662-CV Because Stone’s motion to dismiss did not identify MedFin’s defamation, slander, or civil conspiracy to commit defamation and slander causes of action, the trial court er

2019We reject Harry’s argument that the trial court failed to weigh the Stone factors appropriately because that was his burden, and we conclude that the trial court had no independent burden to analyze those factors for him.9 Relying on In re Daugherty, 42 S.W.3d 331, 336 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, no pet.), Harry argues that the trial court still should have allowed him to participate in the trial through another means, ostensibly through video or teleconference.

2019We reject Harry’s argument that the trial court failed to weigh the Stone factors appropriately because that was his burden, and we conclude that the trial court had no independent burden to analyze those factors for him.9 Relying on In re Daugherty, 42 S.W.3d 331, 336 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, no pet.), Harry argues that the trial court still should have allowed him to participate in the trial through another means, ostensibly through video or teleconference.

2011See Wilson v. Burford, 904 S.W.2d 628, 629 (Tex.1995) (Both parties may rely on summary judgment evidence submitted by one of the parties.); Perry v. Houston Indep.

2011See Wilson v. Burford, 904 S.W.2d 628, 629 (Tex.1995) (Both parties may rely on summary judgment evidence submitted by one of the parties.); Perry v. Houston Indep.

2008See Risner , 18 S.W.3d at 909 (finding that a trial court is not required to consider a motion not called to its attention).

2008See Risner , 18 S.W.3d at 909 (finding that a trial court is not required to consider a motion not called to its attention).

1996Rodriguez v. State, 888 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994); Harris v. State, 866 S.W.2d 316 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1993, pet. ref'd.).

1996Rodriguez v. State, 888 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1994); Harris v. State, 866 S.W.2d 316 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1993, pet. ref’d.).

1996White v. State, 890 S.W.2d 131 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1994, pet. filed); Lisai v. State, 875 S.W.2d 35, 37 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1994, pet. ref'd.); Hernandez v. State, 867 S.W.2d 900 , 905 n. 2 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1993); Lewis v. State, 856 S.W.2d 271 , 273 n. 1 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1993); Williams v. State, 848 S.W.2d 915, 916-17 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1993).

1996White v. State, 890 S.W.2d 131 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1994, pet. filed); Lisai v. State, 875 S.W.2d 35, 37 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1994, pet. ref'd.); Hernandez v. State, 867 S.W.2d 900 , 905 n. 2 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1993); Lewis v. State, 856 S.W.2d 271 , 273 n. 1 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1993); Williams v. State, 848 S.W.2d 915, 916-17 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1993).

1996Clewis, 876 S.W.2d at 433 (citations and notes omitted).

1996Clewis, 876 S.W.2d at 433 (citations and notes omitted).

1994Compare Williams v. State, 848 S.W.2d 915, 916-17 (Tex.App.— Texarkana 1993, no pet.) (adopting the Stone standard) with Crouch v. State, 858 S.W.2d 599, 601 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1993, pet. ref'd) (rejecting the Stone standard) and Mukes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 571, 573-574 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no pet.) (rejecting the Stone standard).

1994Compare Williams v. State, 848 S.W.2d 915, 916-17 (Tex.App.— Texarkana 1993, no pet.) (adopting the Stone standard) with Crouch v. State, 858 S.W.2d 599, 601 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1993, pet. ref'd) (rejecting the Stone standard) and Mukes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 571, 573-574 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no pet.) (rejecting the Stone standard).

1994Id. (citing Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex.1986) (per curiam)).

1994Id. (citing Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex.1986) (per curiam)).