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.
16 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2025 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Magness v. Magnessgreen2 sentences2025“When reviewing an alleged property characterization error, we must determine whether the trial court’s finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence and whether the characterization error, if established, was an abuse of discretion.” Magness v. Magness, 241 S.W.3d 910, 912 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. denied); see also Waring, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 8948 , at *7. 2020“When reviewing an alleged property characterization error, we must determine whether the trial court’s finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence and whether the characterization error, if established, was an abuse of discretion.” Magness v. Magness, 241 S.W.3d 910, 912 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, 14 pet. denied). | 11 | 11 |
Sink v. Sinkgreen2 sentences2023“When reviewing an alleged property characterization error, we must determine whether the trial court’s finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence and whether the characterization error, if established, was an abuse of discretion.” Sink v. Sink, 364 S.W.3d 340, 343 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.). 2022“When reviewing an alleged property characterization error, we must determine whether the trial court’s finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence and whether the characterization error, if established, was an abuse of discretion.” Sink v. Sink, 364 S.W.3d 340, 343 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.). | 4 | 6 |
Boyd v. Boydgreen1 sentence2020“While the proof must weigh heavier than merely the greater weight of the credible evidence, there is no requirement that the evidence be unequivocal or undisputed.” Boyd v. Boyd, 131 S.W.3d 605, 611 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Wells v. Wellsgreen1 sentence2014Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696 , 698–99 (Tex. 1981); Magness v. Magness, 241 S.W.3d 910, 912 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. denied); Wells v. Wells, 251 S.W.3d 834, 838 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Prague v. Praguegreen1 sentence2007Prague v. Prague, 190 S.W.3d 31, 38 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Murff v. Murff
green
1 sentence2014Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696 , 698–99 (Tex. 1981); Magness v. Magness, 241 S.W.3d 910, 912 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. denied); Wells v. Wells, 251 S.W.3d 834, 838 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008, no pet.). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.