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.
12 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
McKinley v. McKinleygreen2 sentences2025See id. (citing McKinley, 496 S.W.2d at 543-44 ). 2015Id. at 320; see McKinley v. McKinley, 496 S.W.2d 540 (Tex. 1973); Hill v. Hill, 971 S.W.2d 153 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998, no pet.); Welder v. Welder, 794 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, no writ). | 4 | 4 |
Sibley v. Sibleygreen2 sentences1990During cross-examination, appellant established that Howard’s tracing of appel-lee’s funds was largely based on the community-out-first presumption as set forth in Sibley v. Sibley, 286 S.W.2d 657, 659 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1955, writ dism’d). 1990Sibley, 286 S.W.2d at 659 ; see also Harris v. Ventura, 582 S.W.2d 853, 855-56 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1979, no writ); Horlock v. Horlock, 533 S.W.2d 52, 58 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, writ dism’d); Barrington v. Barrington, 290 S.W.2d 297, 304 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1956, no writ); but cf. Goodridge v. Goodridge, 591 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979, writ dism’d). 3 *434 Appellant argues that the community-out-first presumption should be limited to situations where one party is acting in a special position of trust with regard to the other’s funds, over and above the tru | 3 | 3 |
Zagorski v. Zagorskigreen2 sentences2025See id. (citing McKinley, 496 S.W.2d at 543-44 ). 2023Id. | 2 | 6 |
Welder v. Weldergreen2 sentences2021“The only requirement for tracing and the application of the community-out-first presumption is that the party attempting to overcome the community presumption produce clear evidence of the transactions 26 affecting the commingled account.” Id. (quoting Welder v. Welder, 794 S.W.2d 420, 434 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1990, no writ)). 2000"The only requirement for tracing and the application of the community-out-first presumption is that the party attempting to overcome the community presumption produce clear evidence of the transactions affecting the commingled account." Welder v. Welder, 794 S.W.2d at 434 . *147 We assume, without deciding, that the community-out-first presumption is a rebuttable one. [5] Mrs. Smith, however, cites no evidence to rebut the presumption. | 1 | 3 |
Mock v. Mockgreen1 sentence2008See Mock v. Mock, 216 S.W.3d 370, 373 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2006, no pet.); Zagorski v. Zagorski, 116 S.W.3d 309, 319-20 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Humphrey v. Humphreygreen1 sentence2000See, e.g., McElwee, 911 S.W.2d at 189 (whether court commits reversible error by mischaracterizing community property as separate property not addressed by Supreme Court; once reversible error affecting "just and right" division of community estate found, however, court of appeals must remand entire community estate for new division); Humphrey v. Humphrey, 593 S.W.2d 824, 828 (Tex.Civ. | 1 | 1 |
McElwee v. McElweegreen1 sentence2000See, e.g., McElwee, 911 S.W.2d at 189 (whether court commits reversible error by mischaracterizing community property as separate property not addressed by Supreme Court; once reversible error affecting "just and right" division of community estate found, however, court of appeals must remand entire community estate for new division); Humphrey v. Humphrey, 593 S.W.2d 824, 828 (Tex.Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Venturagreen1 sentence1990Sibley, 286 S.W.2d at 659 ; see also Harris v. Ventura, 582 S.W.2d 853, 855-56 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1979, no writ); Horlock v. Horlock, 533 S.W.2d 52, 58 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, writ dism’d); Barrington v. Barrington, 290 S.W.2d 297, 304 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1956, no writ); but cf. Goodridge v. Goodridge, 591 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979, writ dism’d). 3 *434 Appellant argues that the community-out-first presumption should be limited to situations where one party is acting in a special position of trust with regard to the other’s funds, over and above the tru | 1 | 1 |
Barrington v. Barringtongreen1 sentence1990Sibley, 286 S.W.2d at 659 ; see also Harris v. Ventura, 582 S.W.2d 853, 855-56 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1979, no writ); Horlock v. Horlock, 533 S.W.2d 52, 58 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, writ dism’d); Barrington v. Barrington, 290 S.W.2d 297, 304 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1956, no writ); but cf. Goodridge v. Goodridge, 591 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979, writ dism’d). 3 *434 Appellant argues that the community-out-first presumption should be limited to situations where one party is acting in a special position of trust with regard to the other’s funds, over and above the tru | 1 | 1 |
Horlock v. Horlockgreen1 sentence1990Sibley, 286 S.W.2d at 659 ; see also Harris v. Ventura, 582 S.W.2d 853, 855-56 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1979, no writ); Horlock v. Horlock, 533 S.W.2d 52, 58 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, writ dism’d); Barrington v. Barrington, 290 S.W.2d 297, 304 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1956, no writ); but cf. Goodridge v. Goodridge, 591 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979, writ dism’d). 3 *434 Appellant argues that the community-out-first presumption should be limited to situations where one party is acting in a special position of trust with regard to the other’s funds, over and above the tru | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Goodridge v. Goodridgegreen1 sentence1990Sibley, 286 S.W.2d at 659 ; see also Harris v. Ventura, 582 S.W.2d 853, 855-56 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1979, no writ); Horlock v. Horlock, 533 S.W.2d 52, 58 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, writ dism’d); Barrington v. Barrington, 290 S.W.2d 297, 304 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1956, no writ); but cf. Goodridge v. Goodridge, 591 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979, writ dism’d). 3 *434 Appellant argues that the community-out-first presumption should be limited to situations where one party is acting in a special position of trust with regard to the other’s funds, over and above the tru | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kuehn v. Kuehn
green
2 sentences2003See McKinley v. McKinley, 496 S.W.2d 540, 543-44 (Tex.1973); Kuehn v. Kuehn, 594 S.W.2d 158 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1980, no writ). 2003See McKinley v. McKinley, 496 S.W.2d 540, 543-44 (Tex.1973); Kuehn v. Kuehn, 594 S.W.2d 158 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1980, no writ). | 2 | 1990–2003 |
Smith v. Smith
green
1 sentence2021“The only requirement for tracing and the application of the community-out-first presumption is that the party attempting to overcome the community presumption produce clear evidence of the transactions 26 affecting the commingled account.” Id. (quoting Welder v. Welder, 794 S.W.2d 420, 434 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1990, no writ)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Hill v. Hill
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 320; see McKinley v. McKinley, 496 S.W.2d 540 (Tex. 1973); Hill v. Hill, 971 S.W.2d 153 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998, no pet.); Welder v. Welder, 794 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, no writ). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.