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.
15 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1986–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schismatic & Purported Casa Linda Presbyterian Church in America v. Grace Union Presbytery, Inc.green2 sentences2018But see Masterson, 422 S.W.3d at 605 & n.5 (listing Presbytery of the Covenant as one of the court of appeals cases reading Brown as applying a deference approach and applying deference principles to hierarchical church property dispute cases); Schismatic & Purported Casa Linda Presbyterian Church in Am. v. Grace Union Presbytery, Inc., 710 S.W.2d 700, 705 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (stating that although the Texarkana court purported to apply neutral principles in Presbytery of the Covenant, “the court in fact applied the deference rule in reaching its decision”), 68 cert. den 2014See Green v. Westgate Apostolic Church, 808 S.W.2d 547, 551 (Tex.App.-Austin 1991, writ denied) (“Appellate courts have consistently followed the deference rule in deciding hierarchical church property disputes since the Texas Supreme Court adopted the rule in Brown.”); Schismatic & Purported Casa Linda Presbyterian, 710 S.W.2d at 707 (holding Texas law “has consistently followed the deference rule” and declining to adopt the “neutral principles” application). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Cullengreen2 sentences2015The Court of Appeals failed to give adequate consideration to all the factors in support of Appellant’s request for an Article 38.23 instruction…………….……..10 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ......................................................................................................12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .....................................................................................................12 APPENDIX...................................................................................................14 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Agnew v. State, Cause No. 12-13-00181-CR (Tex. App.—Tyler 2015The Court of Appeals failed to give adequate consideration to all the factors in support of Appellant’s request for an Article 38.23 instruction……………………………………………..……..10 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER .........................................................................12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...........................................................................12 APPENDIX............................................................................................................14 iii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Agnew v. State, Cause No. 12-13-00181-CR (Tex. App.—Tyler November 25, 2014) (not desig | 2 | 2 |
First American Title Insurance Co. v. Combsgreen2 sentences2011Title, 258 S.W.3d at 632 (internal quotation marks omitted)). 5 “We need not consider whether the [agency’s] construction is the only — or the best — interpretation in order to warrant our deference.” Id. at 628 . 2011Title, 258 S.W.3d at 632 (internal quotation marks omitted)). 5 “We need not consider whether the [agency’s] construction is the only — or the best — interpretation in order to warrant our deference.” Id. at 628 . | 2 | 2 |
Fiess v. State Farm Lloydsgreen2 sentences2011The deference standard applies only if the statute is ambiguous, and we must consider only an agency’s “ ‘formal opinions adopted after formal proceedings, not isolated comments during a hearing or opinions [in a court brief].’ ” Id. (quoting Fiess v. State Fam Lloyds, 202 S.W.3d 744, 747-48 (Tex.2006)). “[W]e will generally uphold an agency’s interpretation ... so long as the construction is reasonable and does not contradict the plain language of the statute.” Id. (quoting First Am. 2011The deference standard applies only if the statute is ambiguous, and we must consider only an agency’s “ ‘formal opinions adopted after formal proceedings, not isolated comments during a hearing or opinions [in a court brief].’ ” Id. (quoting Fiess v. State Fam Lloyds, 202 S.W.3d 744, 747-48 (Tex.2006)). “[W]e will generally uphold an agency’s interpretation ... so long as the construction is reasonable and does not contradict the plain language of the statute.” Id. (quoting First Am. | 2 | 2 |
Masterson v. Diocese of Northwest Texasgreen2 sentences2018But see Masterson, 422 S.W.3d at 605 & n.5 (listing Presbytery of the Covenant as one of the court of appeals cases reading Brown as applying a deference approach and applying deference principles to hierarchical church property dispute cases); Schismatic & Purported Casa Linda Presbyterian Church in Am. v. Grace Union Presbytery, Inc., 710 S.W.2d 700, 705 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (stating that although the Texarkana court purported to apply neutral principles in Presbytery of the Covenant, “the court in fact applied the deference rule in reaching its decision”), 68 cert. den 2014However, in Masterson v. Diocese of Northwest Texas, No. 11-0332, 422 S.W.3d 594, 607 (Tex.2013), which we discuss in detail below, the Supreme Court of Texas put the issue to rest by stating, “We hold that Texas courts should use the neutral principles methodology to determine property interests when religious organizations are involved. | 1 | 2 |
TGS-NOPEC GEOPHYSICAL CO. v. Combsgreen1 sentence2015The Texas Supreme Court has applied the deference standard “[i]f there is vagueness, ambiguity, or room for policy interpretation in [the] statute or regulation.” TGS–NOPEC Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432, 438 (Tex. 2011) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Texas Association of Psychological Associates v. Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists and Texas Psychological Associationgreen1 sentence2015“Ambiguity” in a statute or a statutory term has been held to mean that “there is more than one reasonable interpretation of it.” Tex. Ass’n of 7 Psychological Assoc. v. Tex. State Bd. of Examn’rs of Psychologists, 439 S.W.3d 597, 603 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Skinner v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Skinner v. State, 122 S.W.3d 808, 811 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Westgate Apostolic Churchgreen1 sentence2014See Green v. Westgate Apostolic Church, 808 S.W.2d 547, 551 (Tex.App.-Austin 1991, writ denied) (“Appellate courts have consistently followed the deference rule in deciding hierarchical church property disputes since the Texas Supreme Court adopted the rule in Brown.”); Schismatic & Purported Casa Linda Presbyterian, 710 S.W.2d at 707 (holding Texas law “has consistently followed the deference rule” and declining to adopt the “neutral principles” application). | 1 | 1 |
Browning v. Burtongreen1 sentence2013It is a simple question of identity.”); Templo Ebenezer, Inc. v. Evangelical Assemblies, Inc., 752 S.W.2d 197, 198 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1988, no writ); Schismatic & Purported Casa Linda Presbyterian Church in Am. v. Grace Union Presbytery, Inc., 710 S.W.2d 700, 706-07 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (applying the deference rule); Presbytery of the Covenant v. First Presbyterian Church, 552 S.W.2d 865, 871-72 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1977, no writ) (determining that the question of which faction of a congregation that is part of a hierarchical religious body is entitled to church propert | 1 | 1 |
Church of God in Christ, Inc. v. Reverend A. L. Cawthongreen1 sentence2013It is a simple question of identity.”); Templo Ebenezer, Inc. v. Evangelical Assemblies, Inc., 752 S.W.2d 197, 198 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1988, no writ); Schismatic & Purported Casa Linda Presbyterian Church in Am. v. Grace Union Presbytery, Inc., 710 S.W.2d 700, 706-07 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (applying the deference rule); Presbytery of the Covenant v. First Presbyterian Church, 552 S.W.2d 865, 871-72 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1977, no writ) (determining that the question of which faction of a congregation that is part of a hierarchical religious body is entitled to church propert | 1 | 1 |
Presbytery of the Covenant v. First Presbyterian Church of Paris, Inc.green1 sentence2013It is a simple question of identity.”); Templo Ebenezer, Inc. v. Evangelical Assemblies, Inc., 752 S.W.2d 197, 198 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1988, no writ); Schismatic & Purported Casa Linda Presbyterian Church in Am. v. Grace Union Presbytery, Inc., 710 S.W.2d 700, 706-07 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (applying the deference rule); Presbytery of the Covenant v. First Presbyterian Church, 552 S.W.2d 865, 871-72 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1977, no writ) (determining that the question of which faction of a congregation that is part of a hierarchical religious body is entitled to church propert | 1 | 1 |
Templo Ebenezer, Inc. v. Evangelical Assemblies, Inc.green1 sentence2013It is a simple question of identity.”); Templo Ebenezer, Inc. v. Evangelical Assemblies, Inc., 752 S.W.2d 197, 198 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1988, no writ); Schismatic & Purported Casa Linda Presbyterian Church in Am. v. Grace Union Presbytery, Inc., 710 S.W.2d 700, 706-07 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (applying the deference rule); Presbytery of the Covenant v. First Presbyterian Church, 552 S.W.2d 865, 871-72 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1977, no writ) (determining that the question of which faction of a congregation that is part of a hierarchical religious body is entitled to church propert | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2004Strickland , 466 U.S. at 698 (citations omitted). 7. | 1 | 1 |
Guzman v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). 2002Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Masterson v. Diocese of Northwest Texasgreen2 sentences2018But see Masterson, 422 S.W.3d at 605 & n.5 (listing Presbytery of the Covenant as one of the court of appeals cases reading Brown as applying a deference approach and applying deference principles to hierarchical church property dispute cases); Schismatic & Purported Casa Linda Presbyterian Church in Am. v. Grace Union Presbytery, Inc., 710 S.W.2d 700, 705 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (stating that although the Texarkana court purported to apply neutral principles in Presbytery of the Covenant, “the court in fact applied the deference rule in reaching its decision”), 68 cert. den 2014However, in Masterson v. Diocese of Northwest Texas, No. 11-0332, 422 S.W.3d 594, 607 (Tex.2013), which we discuss in detail below, the Supreme Court of Texas put the issue to rest by stating, “We hold that Texas courts should use the neutral principles methodology to determine property interests when religious organizations are involved. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Railroad Commission v. Texas Citizens for a Safe Future & Clean Water
green
2 sentences2011The deference standard applies only if the statute is ambiguous, and we must consider only an agency’s “ ‘formal opinions adopted after formal proceedings, not isolated comments during a hearing or opinions [in a court brief].’ ” Id. (quoting Fiess v. State Fam Lloyds, 202 S.W.3d 744, 747-48 (Tex.2006)). “[W]e will generally uphold an agency’s interpretation ... so long as the construction is reasonable and does not contradict the plain language of the statute.” Id. (quoting First Am. 2011The deference standard applies only if the statute is ambiguous, and we must consider only an agency’s “‘formal opinions adopted after formal proceedings, not isolated comments during a hearing or opinions [in a court brief].’” Id. (quoting Feiss v. State Farm Lloyds, 202 S.W.3d 744, 747-48 (Tex. 2006)). “[W]e will generally uphold an agency’s interpretation . . . so long as the construction is reasonable and does not contradict the plain language of the statute.” Id. (quoting First Am. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Kelly v. State
green
2 sentences2008Id. 2008Id. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Butler
green
2 sentences1991Appellate courts have consistently followed the deference rule in deciding hierarchical church property disputes since the Texas Supreme Court adopted the rule in Brown, 116 S.W. at 363 . 1986Our intermediate appellate courts have consistently followed the deference rule in deciding hierarchical church property disputes since the Texas Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Clark, 102 Tex. 323 , 116 S.W. 360 (1909). | 2 | 1986–1991 |
Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve, Inc. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc.
green
1 sentence2018But see Masterson, 422 S.W.3d at 605 & n.5 (listing Presbytery of the Covenant as one of the court of appeals cases reading Brown as applying a deference approach and applying deference principles to hierarchical church property dispute cases); Schismatic & Purported Casa Linda Presbyterian Church in Am. v. Grace Union Presbytery, Inc., 710 S.W.2d 700, 705 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (stating that although the Texarkana court purported to apply neutral principles in Presbytery of the Covenant, “the court in fact applied the deference rule in reaching its decision”), 68 cert. den | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Bexar Metropolitan Water District v. City of Bulverde
green
1 sentence2015She further claims that the term “derives its essence by reference 5 to the property rights of an animal owner.” Id. (emphasis added). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Watson v. Jones
green
1 sentence1991The deference rule imputes to members “implied consent” to the governing bylaws of their church: “Persons who unite themselves to a hierarchical church organization do so with ‘implied consent' that church bylaws will govern subject only to overruling decisions based on fraud, collusion or arbitrariness.” Id. at 703 , citing Watson, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 729 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America
green
2 sentences1986Kreshik v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 363 U.S. 190 , 80 S.Ct. 1037 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1960); Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 , 73 S.Ct. 143 , 97 L.Ed. 120 (1952). 1986Kreshik v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 363 U.S. 190 , 80 S.Ct. 1037 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1960); Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 , 73 S.Ct. 143 , 97 L.Ed. 120 (1952). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Kreshik v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church of North America
green
2 sentences1986Kreshik v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 363 U.S. 190 , 80 S.Ct. 1037 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1960); Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 , 73 S.Ct. 143 , 97 L.Ed. 120 (1952). 1986Kreshik v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 363 U.S. 190 , 80 S.Ct. 1037 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1960); Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 , 73 S.Ct. 143 , 97 L.Ed. 120 (1952). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Brown v. Clark
green
2 sentences1986Our intermediate appellate courts have consistently followed the deference rule in deciding hierarchical church property disputes since the Texas Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Clark, 102 Tex. 323 , 116 S.W. 360 (1909). 1986Our intermediate appellate courts have consistently followed the deference rule in deciding hierarchical church property disputes since the Texas Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Clark, 102 Tex. 323 , 116 S.W. 360 (1909). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Jones v. Wolf
green
1 sentence1986The court simply concluded “that the first amendment [does not require] the states to adopt a rule of compulsory deference to religious authority in resolving church property disputes, even where no issue of doctrinal controversy is involved.” Id. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Presbyterian Church in United States v. Eastern Heights Presbyterian Church
green
2 sentences1986Prior to Jones v. Wolf, the Georgia Supreme Court had adopted the neutral principles of law approach in Presbyterian Church v. Eastern Heights Church, 225 Ga. 259 , 167 S.E.2d 658 (1969), while Texas courts have consistently followed the deference rule. 1986Prior to Jones v. Wolf, the Georgia Supreme Court had adopted the neutral principles of law approach in Presbyterian Church v. Eastern Heights Church, 225 Ga. 259 , 167 S.E.2d 658 (1969), while Texas courts have consistently followed the deference rule. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.