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.
11 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Browngreen2 sentences2009Brown v. Brown, 236 S.W.3d 343, 349 (Tex.App.–Houston [1 st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). (footnote: 6) As such, a clarifying order cannot be used to make a substantive change in the decree’s property division even if the decree contains a substantive legal error. 2009Brown v. Brown, 236 S.W.3d 343, 349 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.).6 As such, a clarifying order cannot be used to make a substantive change in the decree’s property division even if the decree contains a substantive legal error. | 6 | 7 |
Gibson v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See Gibson,, 117 S.W.3d at 577-78 . 5 The Court of Appeals also correctly recognized that appellate courts must apply a “clearly erroneous” standard of appellate review to a trial court’s ruling on a Batson claim. 2004See Gibson , 117 S.W.3d at 577-78 . (5) The Court of Appeals also correctly recognized that appellate courts must apply a "clearly erroneous" standard of appellate review to a trial court's ruling on a Batson claim. | 2 | 2 |
in Re Olshan Foundation Repair Company, LLC and Olshan Foundation Repair Company of Dallas, Ltd.green1 sentence2020Repair Co., 328 S.W.3d 883, 888 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding). 6 make a substantive change in the divorce decree after it becomes final even if the decree contains a substantive legal error). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lucio v. State
green
1 sentence2024Because Sueoka’s brief does not reference the record or supporting authorities and does not set out a substantive legal analysis, Sueoka’s issues are “inadequately briefed and present[] nothing for review.” See Lucio, 351 S.W.3d at 896 ; see also Alonzo v. State, No. 03-22- 00518-CR, 2023 WL 5597362 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 30, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not 3 designated for publication) (determining that pro se defendant inadequately briefed issues by failing “to supply appropriate citations to authority and to the record”).1 Even liberally construing Sueoka’s three-page brief to identif | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.