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.
29 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mezick v. Stategreen2 sentences2015This meant sustaining the insufficient-evidence point of error only "if the fact finder could not have reasonably found the fact was established by clear and convincing evidence." Id. (quoting Mezick v. State, 920 S.W.2d 427, 430 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ)). 2015This meant sustaining the insufficient-evidence point of error only "if the fact finder could not have reasonably found the fact was established by clear and convincing evidence." Id. (quoting Mezick v. State, 920 S.W.2d 427, 430 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ)). | 6 | 10 |
In the Interest of B.R.green2 sentences2015This meant sustaining the insufficient-evidence point of error only "if the fact finder could not have reasonably found the fact was established by clear and convincing evidence." Id. (quoting Mezick v. State, 920 S.W.2d 427, 430 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ)). 2015This meant sustaining the insufficient-evidence point of error only "if the fact finder could not have reasonably found the fact was established by clear and convincing evidence." Id. (quoting Mezick v. State, 920 S.W.2d 427, 430 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ)). | 3 | 11 |
Williams v. Texas Department of Human Servicesgreen2 sentences1997We will sustain an insufficient evidence point of error only “if the fact finder could not have reasonably found the fact was established by clear and convincing evidence.” Mezick, 920 S.W.2d at 430, quoting Williams, 788 S.W.2d at 926 . 1997We will sustain an insufficient evidence point of error only “if the fact finder could not have reasonably found the fact was established by clear and convincing evidence.” Mezick, 920 S.W.2d at 430 , quoting Williams, 788 S.W.2d at 926 . | 2 | 5 |
In Re King's Estategreen2 sentences1985In considering the insufficient evidence point of error, we will follow the well established test set forth in In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662 , 244 S.W.2d 660, 661 (1951). 1985In considering the insufficient evidence point of error, we will follow the well established test set forth in In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662 , 244 S.W.2d 660, 661 (1951). | 2 | 5 |
In the Interest of L.R.M.green2 sentences1991Williams v. Texas Dep't of Human Servs., 788 S.W.2d 922, 926 (Tex.App — Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ); In the Interest of L.R.M., 763 S.W.2d 64, 66-67 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1989, no writ). 1991Williams v. Texas Dep’t of Human Servs., 788 S.W.2d 922, 926 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ); In the Interest of L.R.M., 763 S.W.2d 64, 66-67 (Tex.App.— Fort Worth 1989, no writ). | 2 | 2 |
Neiswander v. Baileygreen2 sentences2000In re B.R., 950 S.W.2d at 119 ; see also, Neiswander v. Bailey, 645 S.W.2d 835, 835-36 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1982, no writ); Mezick v. State, 920 S.W.2d 427, 430 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ); In the Interest of P.S. and L.S., 766 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no writ). 1998STANDARD OF REVIEW Recently, this court has determined that where the burden of proof at trial is by clear and convincing evidence, we will apply the higher standard of factual sufficiency review first articulated in Neiswander v. Bailey, 645 S.W.2d 835 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1982, no writ). 5 After considering all of the evidence, we must determine whether the trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the existence of the fact is highly probable. 6 Under this standard, we must consider whether the evidence was sufficient to produce in the mind of the fact finder a firm belief or conviction as to | 1 | 2 |
In the Interest of P.S.green1 sentence2000In re B.R., 950 S.W.2d at 119 ; see also, Neiswander v. Bailey, 645 S.W.2d 835, 835-36 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1982, no writ); Mezick v. State, 920 S.W.2d 427, 430 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ); In the Interest of P.S. and L.S., 766 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Cain v. Baingreen1 sentence1993Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex.1986). 7 . | 1 | 1 |
Shelton v. Ectorgreen1 sentence1991E.g. , Shelton v. Ector , 364 S.W.2d 425, 428 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
O'NEIL v. MacK Trucks, Inc.green2 sentences1984The fourth point, although appearing at first light to be a multifarious one of ambiguous nature and offering sundry contentions of error, is in actuality, when measured by the development of it under the criterion of O'Neil v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 542 S.W.2d 112, 114 (Tex.1976), an insufficient evidence point of error. 1984The fourth point, although appearing at first light to be a multifarious one of ambiguous nature and offering sundry contentions of error, is in actuality, when measured by the development of it under the criterion of O’Neil v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 542 S.W.2d 112, 114 (Tex.1976), an insufficient evidence point of error. | 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 KC
green
2 sentences2002The Ninth Court of Appeals has held that to withstand a factual sufficiency challenge in parental termination cases, "the evidence must permit a rational trier of fact to hold a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established." In re K.C., Jr., 23 S.W.3d at 605 . 2002The Ninth Court of Appeals has held that to withstand a factual sufficiency challenge in parental termination cases, “the evidence must permit a rational trier of fact to hold a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.” In re K.C., Jr., 23 S.W.3d at 605 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Tate v. Tate
green
1 sentence2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Hann v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services
green
1 sentence2000“Even applying the heightened standard of review which we have adopted, a factual sufficiency point requires us to examine all of the evidence in determining whether the finding in question is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust.” Hann, 969 S.W.2d at 82 . 2.Legal Sufficiency Standard of Review Although we use a heightened standard of review for factual sufficiency challenges, we use the traditional standard of review for legal sufficiency challenges. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Cartwright v. Canode
green
2 sentences1974Cartwright v. Canode, 106 Tex. 502 , 171 S.W. 696 (1914); *700 Biggers v. Continental Bus System, 157 Tex. 351 , 303 S.W.2d 359 (1957); In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662 , 244 S.W.2d 660 (1952). 1974Cartwright v. Canode, 106 Tex. 502 , 171 S.W. 696 (1914); *700 Biggers v. Continental Bus System, 157 Tex. 351 , 303 S.W.2d 359 (1957); In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662 , 244 S.W.2d 660 (1952). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Biggers v. Continental Bus System, Inc.
green
2 sentences1974Cartwright v. Canode, 106 Tex. 502 , 171 S.W. 696 (1914); *700 Biggers v. Continental Bus System, 157 Tex. 351 , 303 S.W.2d 359 (1957); In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662 , 244 S.W.2d 660 (1952). 1974Cartwright v. Canode, 106 Tex. 502 , 171 S.W. 696 (1914); *700 Biggers v. Continental Bus System, 157 Tex. 351 , 303 S.W.2d 359 (1957); In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662 , 244 S.W.2d 660 (1952). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.