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.
18 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Portillo-Aguirregreen2 sentences2015United States v. Portillo- Aguirre, 311 F.3d 647, 655 (5th Cir. 2002). 2015United States v. Portillo- Aguirre, 311 F.3d 647, 655 (5th Cir. 2002). | 2 | 2 |
Amores v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Amores v. State, 816 S.W.2d 407, 412 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). 2006Amores v. State, 816 S.W.2d 407, 412 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). | 2 | 2 |
MATTER OF CJP v. Stategreen1 sentence2021See, e.g., C.J.P. v. State, 650 S.W.2d 465 , 466–67 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, no writ) (stating that because the proceeding in which a 38 juvenile court decides whether it waives its exclusive original jurisdiction and transfers the child to an appropriate criminal district court is not an adjudication of the child’s guilt or innocence, unlike a detention hearing, the child’s Fifth Amendment rights are not in issue); cf. In re N.B., No. 03-97-00766-CV, 1999 WL 214881 , at *1 (Tex. App.— Austin Apr. 15, 1999, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (collecting cases in which cour | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Charlesgreen1 sentence2018Juvenile Department of Multnomah County v. Charles, 688 P.2d 1354, 1358 (Or.Ct.App. 1984)(holding that emergency removal of a child is initially purely a state law matter not subject to all ICWA requirements); Matter of the Welfare of J.A.S., 488 N.W.2d 332, 335 (Minn.Ct.App. 1992) (holding the testimony of a qualified Indian expert was not required at the initial detention hearing in the case since that hearing was an emergency removal); In re S.B., 130 Cal.App.4th 1148 , 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 726, 734-36 (Cal.Ct.App. 2005)(holding that not all provisions of ICWA apply to a detention/emergency remov | 1 | 1 |
In Re SBgreen2 sentences2018Juvenile Department of Multnomah County v. Charles, 688 P.2d 1354, 1358 (Or.Ct.App. 1984)(holding that emergency removal of a child is initially purely a state law matter not subject to all ICWA requirements); Matter of the Welfare of J.A.S., 488 N.W.2d 332, 335 (Minn.Ct.App. 1992) (holding the testimony of a qualified Indian expert was not required at the initial detention hearing in the case since that hearing was an emergency removal); In re S.B., 130 Cal.App.4th 1148 , 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 726, 734-36 (Cal.Ct.App. 2005)(holding that not all provisions of ICWA apply to a detention/emergency remov 2018Juvenile Department of Multnomah County v. Charles, 688 P.2d 1354, 1358 (Or.Ct.App. 1984)(holding that emergency removal of a child is initially purely a state law matter not subject to all ICWA requirements); Matter of the Welfare of J.A.S., 488 N.W.2d 332, 335 (Minn.Ct.App. 1992) (holding the testimony of a qualified Indian expert was not required at the initial detention hearing in the case since that hearing was an emergency removal); In re S.B., 130 Cal.App.4th 1148 , 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 726, 734-36 (Cal.Ct.App. 2005)(holding that not all provisions of ICWA apply to a detention/emergency remov | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Welfare of J.A.S.green1 sentence2018Juvenile Department of Multnomah County v. Charles, 688 P.2d 1354, 1358 (Or.Ct.App. 1984)(holding that emergency removal of a child is initially purely a state law matter not subject to all ICWA requirements); Matter of the Welfare of J.A.S., 488 N.W.2d 332, 335 (Minn.Ct.App. 1992) (holding the testimony of a qualified Indian expert was not required at the initial detention hearing in the case since that hearing was an emergency removal); In re S.B., 130 Cal.App.4th 1148 , 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 726, 734-36 (Cal.Ct.App. 2005)(holding that not all provisions of ICWA apply to a detention/emergency remov | 1 | 1 |
Wiede v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Wade, 422 S.W.3d at 668 ; Weide v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Wade, Christopher Jamesgreen1 sentence2014See Wade, 422 S.W.3d at 668 ; Weide v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2013When Warden Campbell simply repeated his 35 Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972); Carmouche, 10 S.W.3d at 329 . | 1 | 1 |
Porath v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Citing Porath v. State , 148 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.), the State argues that by failing to raise the issue of the scope of the detention at the hearing, appellant waived this issue. 2006See 148 S.W.3d at 414 . | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Davis v. State , 947 S.W.2d 240, 244 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of SAMgreen1 sentence1999See, e.g., In the Matter of M.M.R., 932 S.W.2d 112 , 113 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1996, no writ); In the Matter of S.A.M., 933 S.W.2d 744, 745 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of MMRgreen1 sentence1999See, e.g., In the Matter of M.M.R., 932 S.W.2d 112 , 113 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1996, no writ); In the Matter of S.A.M., 933 S.W.2d 744, 745 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Adair v. Kupper
green
2 sentences1996Nor do we read the case cited to us in support of this proposition, Adair v. Kupper, 890 S.W.2d 216 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1994, no writ), as requiring this result. 1996Nor do we read the case cited to us in support of this proposition, Adair v. Kupper, 890 S.W.2d 216 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1994, no writ), as requiring this result. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Moore v. State
green
1 sentence2022Further, Armijo gave uncontroverted testimony that C.C.C. reported to her weekly throughout the pendency of the case. 10 In light of the foregoing, we conclude the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that “for a reason beyond the control of the state, it was not practicable to proceed in juvenile court before [C.C.C.]’s 18th birthday.” See id. § 53.02(j)(4)(A). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Carmouche v. State
green
1 sentence2013When Warden Campbell simply repeated his 35 Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972); Carmouche, 10 S.W.3d at 329 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Kothe v. State
green
1 sentence2008Id. at 64 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Matter of AB
green
1 sentence2008Code Ann. § 51.04 (a) (Vernon 2002). 8 … See id. § 51.02(2)(A) (stating a “child” is a person who is ten years of age or older but under seventeen years of age). 9 … See id. § 53.04(d) (setting forth requirements of petition to adjudicate); In re A.B., 868 S.W.2d 938 , 940–41 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994, no writ) (discussing notice requirements for petition to adjudicate). 10 … See Tex. Fam. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
St. George v. State
green
1 sentence2007Id. at 823 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Comer v. State
green
1 sentence1992Comer v. State , 776 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.