14 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lesikar v. Rappeportgreen2 sentences2011See Lesikar, 33 S.W.3d at 311 . 2011See Lesikar, 33 S.W.3d at 311 . | 3 | 3 |
Utts v. Shortgreen2 sentences2020In Utts v. Short, 81 S.W.3d 822, 824 (Tex. 2002), the supreme court considered whether a pretrial settlement by a family member in a medical malpractice action should be applied to amounts awarded by the jury to the nonsettling family members. 2020In Utts v. Short, 81 S.W.3d 822, 824 (Tex. 2002), the supreme court considered whether a pretrial settlement by a family member in a medical malpractice action should be applied to amounts awarded by the jury to the nonsettling family members. | 2 | 2 |
Inwood Forest Community Improvement Ass'n v. Arcegreen2 sentences2018Inwood Forest Cmty. Improvement Ass’n v. Arce, 485 S.W.3d 65, 71 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (citing S & A Rest. 2018Inwood Forest Cmty. Improvement Ass’n v. Arce, 485 S.W.3d 65, 71 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (citing S & A Rest. | 2 | 2 |
Barnard v. Barnardgreen2 sentences2009See Bradford v. Bradford, No. 14-94-00881-CV, 1995 WL 613060 , at *2 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 19, 1995, no writ) (not designated for publication) (holding that appellant was estopped to complain that documents were not admitted in evidence and so could not be considered on appeal when the trial court and parties treated the documents as if they were in evidence and appellant voiced no objection below); cf Barnard v. Barnard, 133 S.W.3d 782, 788 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied) (holding that it was error for the trial court to divide community property based on divorcing parti 2009See Bradford v. Bradford, No. 14-94-00881-CV, 1995 WL 613060 , at *2 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 19, 1995, no writ) (not designated for publication) (holding that appellant was estopped to complain that documents were not admitted in evidence and so could not be considered on appeal when the trial court and parties treated the documents as if they were in evidence and appellant voiced no objection below); cf. Barnard v. Barnard, 133 S.W.3d 782, 788 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied) (holding that it was error for the trial court to divide community property based on divorcing part | 2 | 2 |
In Re BRGgreen1 sentence2020Id. (citing In re B.R.G., 48 S.W.3d 812, 820 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2001, no pet.)); see In re R.C.R., 230 S.W.3d 423, 426 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (“[I]f a court 3 In his September 10, 2018 letter, Roberts had notified the trial court that either his “agent” could appear for him in court or he could participate by phone in a final prove-up hearing, which was unsurprising in light of his incarceration. | 1 | 1 |
In Re RCRgreen1 sentence2020Id. (citing In re B.R.G., 48 S.W.3d 812, 820 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2001, no pet.)); see In re R.C.R., 230 S.W.3d 423, 426 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (“[I]f a court 3 In his September 10, 2018 letter, Roberts had notified the trial court that either his “agent” could appear for him in court or he could participate by phone in a final prove-up hearing, which was unsurprising in light of his incarceration. | 1 | 1 |
Vic A. Gardner v. Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas The State of Texas And Glenn Elliott, Individuallygreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., Gardner v. Abbott, 414 S.W.3d 369, 386 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, no pet.) (“If a witness provides a conclusion but does not provide underlying facts to support the conclusion, then the witness’s testimony is conclusory and legally insufficient to support a judgment.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Skidmore v. Glenngreen1 sentence2017See id.; Oliverez v. Oliverez, No. 13-07-00348-CV, 12 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 4501 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 19, 2008, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (concluding that trial court expressed intent to render judgment when it stated, “Then the divorce is granted.”); In re Marriage of Joyner, 196 S.W.3d 883, 885, 887, 892 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. denied) (holding that trial court rendered judgment by oral pronouncement that “your divorce is granted”); see also Comerio, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 5939 , at *7–8 (holding that trial court intended to render judgment when it stated, “Granted and r | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Marriage of Joynergreen1 sentence2017See id.; Oliverez v. Oliverez, No. 13-07-00348-CV, 12 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 4501 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 19, 2008, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (concluding that trial court expressed intent to render judgment when it stated, “Then the divorce is granted.”); In re Marriage of Joyner, 196 S.W.3d 883, 885, 887, 892 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. denied) (holding that trial court rendered judgment by oral pronouncement that “your divorce is granted”); see also Comerio, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 5939 , at *7–8 (holding that trial court intended to render judgment when it stated, “Granted and r | 1 | 1 |
Lisa Kramer, F/K/A Lisa Kastleman v. Bryan Kastlemangreen1 sentence2017See Kramer, 508 S.W.3d at 214 n.6. | 1 | 1 |
Louwien v. Dowellgreen2 sentences2015In Chunn, the parties reached a verbal agreement on conservatorship and possession of their three minor children, division of most of their community property, and other matters, which the parties memorialized in a document entitled “Points of Agreement.” 47 After the parties proved up their agreement before the trial court, the trial court approved the agreement and granted the divorce effective that day. 48 The case was reset for entry of judgment, but on the day of the hearing, both parties refused to sign the proposed judgment. 49 46 881 S.W.2d 912 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig 2015App.— Dallas 1976, orig. proceeding (explaining that an oral pronouncement is a valid judgment as long as the oral pronouncement is not set aside and the trial court can grant a new trial or otherwise change its judgment at any time if no written judgment has been signed))). 58 Id. 59 See id. at 914. 26 Temporary orders typically expire with the entry of a final judgment. 60 Although a temporary order may not supersede a judgment once the temporary order has expired, a trial court may enter temporary orders independently of the final decree. 61 The rendition of a final divorce decree does not | 1 | 1 |
Vazquez v. Vazquezgreen2 sentences2011See id. 2011See Vazquez, 292 S.W.3d at 85 ; Wilson, 132 S.W.3d at 538 . | 1 | 1 |
Barnes v. Frost National Bankgreen1 sentence2003See Barnes v. Frost Nat’l Bank , 840 S.W.2d 747, 750 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1992, no writ). 2: During oral argument, Walz’s attorney asserted that evidence was admitted at the prove-up hearing showing the address provided to the Secretary of State was correct and that GMR was served at this address. | 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 Daredia
green
2 sentences2018To the extent Charles’s or Lori’s attorney may have committed drafting errors that became a part of the trial court’s judgment as rendered in the final divorce decree, such mistakes constitute judicial, not clerical, error.12 See In re Daredia, 317 S.W.3d 247 , 249–50 (Tex. 2010) (per curiam) (“[P]rovisions alleged to have been inserted by mistake of the attorney nevertheless become a part of the court’s judgment and therefore are judicial errors when thus rendered in writing by the court.” (citing Dikeman, 490 S.W.2d at 185–86)); see also, e.g., In re D & KW “Divorce granted pursuant to media 2018To the extent Charles’s or Lori’s attorney may have committed drafting errors that became a part of the trial court’s judgment as rendered in the final divorce decree, such mistakes constitute judicial, not clerical, error.12 See In re Daredia, 317 S.W.3d 247 , 249–50 (Tex. 2010) (per curiam) (“[P]rovisions alleged to have been inserted by mistake of the attorney nevertheless become a part of the court’s judgment and therefore are judicial errors when thus rendered in writing by the court.” (citing Dikeman, 490 S.W.2d at 185–86)); see also, e.g., In re D & KW “Divorce granted pursuant to media | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Dikeman v. Snell
green
2 sentences2018To the extent Charles’s or Lori’s attorney may have committed drafting errors that became a part of the trial court’s judgment as rendered in the final divorce decree, such mistakes constitute judicial, not clerical, error.12 See In re Daredia, 317 S.W.3d 247 , 249–50 (Tex. 2010) (per curiam) (“[P]rovisions alleged to have been inserted by mistake of the attorney nevertheless become a part of the court’s judgment and therefore are judicial errors when thus rendered in writing by the court.” (citing Dikeman, 490 S.W.2d at 185–86)); see also, e.g., In re D & KW “Divorce granted pursuant to media 2018To the extent Charles’s or Lori’s attorney may have committed drafting errors that became a part of the trial court’s judgment as rendered in the final divorce decree, such mistakes constitute judicial, not clerical, error.12 See In re Daredia, 317 S.W.3d 247 , 249–50 (Tex. 2010) (per curiam) (“[P]rovisions alleged to have been inserted by mistake of the attorney nevertheless become a part of the court’s judgment and therefore are judicial errors when thus rendered in writing by the court.” (citing Dikeman, 490 S.W.2d at 185–86)); see also, e.g., In re D & KW “Divorce granted pursuant to media | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Ringer v. Kimball
green
1 sentence2020Id. (citing In re B.R.G., 48 S.W.3d 812, 820 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2001, no pet.)); see In re R.C.R., 230 S.W.3d 423, 426 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (“[I]f a court 3 In his September 10, 2018 letter, Roberts had notified the trial court that either his “agent” could appear for him in court or he could participate by phone in a final prove-up hearing, which was unsurprising in light of his incarceration. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Ex Parte Chunn
green
2 sentences2015In Chunn, the parties reached a verbal agreement on conservatorship and possession of their three minor children, division of most of their community property, and other matters, which the parties memorialized in a document entitled “Points of Agreement.” 47 After the parties proved up their agreement before the trial court, the trial court approved the agreement and granted the divorce effective that day. 48 The case was reset for entry of judgment, but on the day of the hearing, both parties refused to sign the proposed judgment. 49 46 881 S.W.2d 912 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig 2015In Chunn, the parties reached a verbal agreement on conservatorship and possession of their three minor children, division of most of their community property, and other matters, which the parties memorialized in a document entitled “Points of Agreement.” 47 After the parties proved up their agreement before the trial court, the trial court approved the agreement and granted the divorce effective that day. 48 The case was reset for entry of judgment, but on the day of the hearing, both parties refused to sign the proposed judgment. 49 46 881 S.W.2d 912 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Dunn v. Dunn
green
2 sentences2015In Chunn, the parties reached a verbal agreement on conservatorship and possession of their three minor children, division of most of their community property, and other matters, which the parties memorialized in a document entitled “Points of Agreement.” 47 After the parties proved up their agreement before the trial court, the trial court approved the agreement and granted the divorce effective that day. 48 The case was reset for entry of judgment, but on the day of the hearing, both parties refused to sign the proposed judgment. 49 46 881 S.W.2d 912 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig 2015In Chunn, the parties reached a verbal agreement on conservatorship and possession of their three minor children, division of most of their community property, and other matters, which the parties memorialized in a document entitled “Points of Agreement.” 47 After the parties proved up their agreement before the trial court, the trial court approved the agreement and granted the divorce effective that day. 48 The case was reset for entry of judgment, but on the day of the hearing, both parties refused to sign the proposed judgment. 49 46 881 S.W.2d 912 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Wilson v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2011See Vazquez, 292 S.W.3d at 85 ; Wilson, 132 S.W.3d at 538 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.