24 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1995–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ruiz v. Texas Department of Family & Protective Servicesgreen2 sentences2011Mother did what she was supposed to do under her service plan in order to prove that she did not have a substance abuse problem: she stayed drug-free for two years and never had a positive drug test during the time the case was pending.21 20 The Department argues that it makes no difference whether Mother knew she was pregnant and quotes R.W., 129 S.W.3d at 738–39, for the proposition that ―scienter is only required under subsection (E) when a parent places the child with others who engage in an endangering course of conduct.‖ As explained in the analysis above, Mother’s drug use while she was 2011Mother did what she was supposed to do under her service plan in order to prove that she did not have a substance abuse problem: she stayed drug-free for two years and never had a positive drug test during the time the case was pending. [21] Accordingly, we hold that the evidence of Mother’s drug use during pregnancy is legally insufficient for a reasonable factfinder to form a “firm belief or conviction” that Mother engaged in conduct or knowingly placed M.G.P. with persons who engaged in conduct that endangered the physical or emotional well-being of M.G.P. [22] See In re A.S. , 261 S.W.3d 7 | 2 | 2 |
In Re Asgreen2 sentences2011Mother did what she was supposed to do under her service plan in order to prove that she did not have a substance abuse problem: she stayed drug-free for two years and never had a positive drug test during the time the case was pending.21 20 The Department argues that it makes no difference whether Mother knew she was pregnant and quotes R.W., 129 S.W.3d at 738–39, for the proposition that ―scienter is only required under subsection (E) when a parent places the child with others who engage in an endangering course of conduct.‖ As explained in the analysis above, Mother’s drug use while she was 2011Mother did what she was supposed to do under her service plan in order to prove that she did not have a substance abuse problem: she stayed drug-free for two years and never had a positive drug test during the time the case was pending. [21] Accordingly, we hold that the evidence of Mother’s drug use during pregnancy is legally insufficient for a reasonable factfinder to form a “firm belief or conviction” that Mother engaged in conduct or knowingly placed M.G.P. with persons who engaged in conduct that endangered the physical or emotional well-being of M.G.P. [22] See In re A.S. , 261 S.W.3d 7 | 1 | 3 |
In Re RWgreen2 sentences2013See In re R.W., 129 S.W.3d at 738 ; see also In re C.A.B., 289 S.W.3d at 885 (holding prior convictions for possession of illegal drugs and a positive drug test established clear and convincing proof of a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct that endangered the child’s well-being). 2011Mother did what she was supposed to do under her service plan in order to prove that she did not have a substance abuse problem: she stayed drug-free for two years and never had a positive drug test during the time the case was pending.21 20 The Department argues that it makes no difference whether Mother knew she was pregnant and quotes R.W., 129 S.W.3d at 738–39, for the proposition that ―scienter is only required under subsection (E) when a parent places the child with others who engage in an endangering course of conduct.‖ As explained in the analysis above, Mother’s drug use while she was | 1 | 2 |
In Re JPBgreen1 sentence2025See In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d at 574 (noting it is within factfinder’s province to judge parent’s demeanor and to disbelieve parent’s testimony); In re S.C.F., 522 S.W.3d 84 693, 703 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (holding trial court sitting as factfinder could credit lab reports and witness testimony over father’s denial of drug use and his claim that positive drug test result was false). | 1 | 1 |
Powell v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Simply put, Dean’s and Hindman’s testimony was sufficient to support the trial court’s decision to adjudicate guilt because it allowed the trial court to form a reasonable belief that Washington “was unsuccessfully discharged from the Relapse SAFPF Program . . . on February 11, 2025, due to [his] noncompliance with the program.” (Emphasis omitted); see Bentley v. State, No. 02-16-00241- CR, 2016 WL 7240684 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 15, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (finding that a probation officer’s testimony that the defendant was unsuccessfully discharge 2025Simply put, Dean’s and Hindman’s testimony was sufficient to support the trial court’s decision to adjudicate guilt because it allowed the trial court to form a reasonable belief that Washington “was unsuccessfully discharged from the Relapse SAFPF Program . . . on February 11, 2025, due to [his] noncompliance with the program.” (Emphasis omitted); see Bentley v. State, No. 02-16-00241- CR, 2016 WL 7240684 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 15, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (finding that a probation officer’s testimony that the defendant was unsuccessfully discharge | 1 | 1 |
In Re WECgreen1 sentence2022See In re W.E.C., 110 S.W.3d 231, 239 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (recognizing 29 that fact finder could reasonably infer that parent’s failure to complete scheduled screenings was because she was using drugs). | 1 | 1 |
In re M. N. M.green1 sentence2019See In re M.N.M., 524 S.W.3d 396, 405 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding) (“The Department could not ignore a pre-removal hair follicle test that came back positive or the results of post- removal drug tests[.]”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Jlbgreen1 sentence2018“Drug use and its effect on a parent’s life and [her] ability to parent may establish an endangering course of conduct.” In re J.L.B., 349 S.W.3d 836, 848 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, no pet.) (quoting N.S.G., 235 S.W.3d at 367–68). | 1 | 1 |
In Re CABgreen1 sentence2013See In re R.W., 129 S.W.3d at 738 ; see also In re C.A.B., 289 S.W.3d at 885 (holding prior convictions for possession of illegal drugs and a positive drug test established clear and convincing proof of a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct that endangered the child’s well-being). | 1 | 1 |
Boyles v. Kerrgreen1 sentence2003Third, Mission asserts that the court of appeals' holding regarding Solomon's mental anguish damages conflicts with Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593, 597 (Tex.1993), in which we rejected the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. | 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 J.O.A.
green
2 sentences2026It is apparent from those circumstances that Mother’s continued drug use presented a risk to her “ability to parent.” See In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d at 278 (quoting In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 345 ). 2019Even if such an inference was drawn, “evidence of improved conduct, especially of short-duration, does not conclusively negate the probative value of a long history of drug use and irresponsible choices.” In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 346 . | 3 | 2016–2026 |
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2020He is correct that the report identifies the specimen donor as “Viteld, Benjamin” rather than “Vitela, Benjamin.” But the report also 4 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S. Ct. 1396 , 18 L. 2020He is correct that the report identifies the specimen donor as “Viteld, Benjamin” rather than “Vitela, Benjamin.” But the report also 4 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S. Ct. 1396 , 18 L. | 2 | 2016–2020 |
Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day
green
2 sentences2009Because this is a de novo review of the Board’s decision, we “exercise[ ] [our] own judgment and redetermine[ ] each issue of fact and law.” See Day, 274 S.W.3d at 751 . 2009Because this is a de novo review of the Board's decision, we "exercise[ ] [our] own judgment and redetermine[ ] each issue of fact and law." See Day , 274 S.W.3d at 751 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Holley v. Adams
green
1 sentence2025The CASA volunteer further testified that she did not believe managing conservatorship would be good for the children because they are “kind of delicate emotionally,” that Foster Mother “is the only stability that have known in their life,” and that the children “just need stability.” See id. (listing stability of placement as factor to consider). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re JFC
green
1 sentence2024In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In the Interest of J.M.T.
green
1 sentence2021In re J.M.T., 519 S.W.3d at 269 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Gulf Coast Industrial Workers Union v. Exxon Company, USA
green
2 sentences2020The Fifth Circuit concluded that “not only did the arbitrator refuse to consider evidence of the positive drug test, he prevented Exxon from presenting additional evidence by misleading it into believing that the SAR had been admitted as a business record.” Id. at 850 . 2020The court also noted that “Exxon attempted to establish the SAR as a business record, but the arbitrator stopped it, stating that the test was already admitted.” Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
2900 Smith, Ltd. v. Constellation Newenergy, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In Re NSG
green
1 sentence2018“Drug use and its effect on a parent’s life and [her] ability to parent may establish an endangering course of conduct.” In re J.L.B., 349 S.W.3d 836, 848 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, no pet.) (quoting N.S.G., 235 S.W.3d at 367–68). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
in the Interest of J.D., a Child
green
1 sentence2014In In re J.D., 436 S.W.3d 105 , 118 1 The only positive drug test in the record was recorded on October 31, 2012, which undisputedly occurred before Emma entered drug treatment and 27 days after the Department filed its petition to terminate Emma’s parental rights. -7- Dissenting Opinion 04-14-00399-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.), the trial court inferred from the mother’s past inability to meet her child’s needs, which included considerable physical abuse of the child, an unwillingness or inability to meet her child’s needs in the future. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Richard Carroll III v. Federal Express Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
green
2 sentences2003The plaintiff argued that Federal Express's drug-testing policy created an implied obligation that he would not be terminated except for a positive drug test "that was untainted by error." Id. 2003The plaintiff argued that Federal Express’s drug-testing policy created an implied obligation that he would not be terminated except for a positive drug test “that was untainted by error.” Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Porter v. State
green
1 sentence1995Appellant counters the drug test results do not qualify under any hearsay exception because the test report lacks “indicia of reliability.” Specifically, appellant complains the report containing the positive drug test results was “anonymously authored,” and there was no evidence concerning whether the person who prepared the report was qualified “to make that expert scientific conclusion.” In support of this argument, appellant relies on Porter v. State, 578 S.W.2d 742 (Tex.Crim. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.
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.