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 2003–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Holley v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2015Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-71 (Tex. 1976). 2011See Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976). | 11 | 13 |
In Re Doe 2green2 sentences2004Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex.1976); see also In re Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d 278 , 300 n. 20 (Tex.2000) (recognizing that intermediate courts employ the Holley factors to ascertain best interest in conservatorship cases). 2004Holley v. Adams , 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976); see also In re Doe 2 , 19 S.W.3d 278 , 300 n.20 (Tex. 2000) (recognizing that intermediate courts employ the Holley factors to ascertain best interest in conservatorship cases). | 5 | 5 |
In Re TDCgreen2 sentences2005Holley v. Adams , 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976); T.D.C. , 91 S.W.3d at 873 . 2003Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex.1976); T.D.C., 91 S.W.3d at 872 ; see also In re Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d 278 , 300 n. 20 (Tex.2000) (recognizing that intermediate courts employ the Holley factors to ascertain best interest in conservatorship cases). | 1 | 4 |
In Re WMgreen2 sentences2015In re W.M., 172 S.W.3d 718 , 725 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). - 15 - 04-15-00234-CV We review a trial court’s determination of conservatorship for an abuse of discretion. 2012In re W.M., 172 S.W.3d 718, 724-26 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (citations omitted). | 1 | 3 |
Vazquez v. Vazquezgreen1 sentence2007See Holley v. Adams , 544 S.W.2d 367 , 371 B 72 (Tex. 1976); see also Vazquez v. Vazquez , --- S.W.3d ---, No. 14-05-01257-CV, 2007 WL 1745324 at *3 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] June 19, 2007, no pet.) (applying Holley factors to determine best interest in a conservatorship case). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.