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.
77 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2019–2026 63 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 |
|---|---|---|
in Re Interest of N.G., a Childgreen2 sentences2022In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003); but see In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019) (due process and due course of law requirements mandate that an appellate court detail its analysis in an appeal of termination of parental rights under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) of the Family Code if a parent raises such issues). 3 TERMINATION UNDER SECTION 161.001(b)(1)(D) In his third issue, C.M. argues the evidence is insufficient to support termination of his parental rights under subsection (D) of Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1). 2021P. 47.1; see also In re K.S., 448 S.W.3d 521 , 545 n.24 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2014, pet. denied) (when evidence is sufficient to support termination under one ground, appellate court need not address sufficiency challenges to other grounds for termination in Section 161.001(b)); but see In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019) (due process and due course of law requirements mandate that an appellate court detail its analysis in an appeal of termination of parental rights under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) of the family code if a parent raises such issues.). 3 R.S. did not raise best interest | 61 | 72 |
in the Interest of L.G., a Childgreen2 sentences2021In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d at 234, 237 (holding that “due process and due course of law requirements mandate that an appellate court detail its analysis for an appeal of termination of parental rights” on endangerment grounds because an endangerment finding “becomes a basis to terminate that parent’s rights to other children” under § 161.001(b)(1)(M)); see In re L.G., 596 S.W.3d 778 , 781 (Tex. 2020) (per curiam); In re C.W., 586 S.W.3d 405 , 507 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam); In re Z.M.M., 577 S.W.3d 541, 542 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam); see also TEX. 2020In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d at 234, 237 (holding that “due process and due course of law requirements mandate that an appellate court detail its analysis for an appeal of termination of parental rights” on endangerment grounds because an endangerment finding “becomes a basis to terminate that parent’s rights to other children” under part (M)); see In re L.G., 596 S.W.3d 778 , 781 (Tex. 2020) (per curiam); In re C.W., 586 S.W.3d 405 , 507 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam); In re Z.M.M., 577 S.W.3d 541, 542 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam). | 3 | 3 |
in the Interest of Z.M.M., a Childgreen2 sentences2021In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d at 234, 237 (holding that “due process and due course of law requirements mandate that an appellate court detail its analysis for an appeal of termination of parental rights” on endangerment grounds because an endangerment finding “becomes a basis to terminate that parent’s rights to other children” under § 161.001(b)(1)(M)); see In re L.G., 596 S.W.3d 778 , 781 (Tex. 2020) (per curiam); In re C.W., 586 S.W.3d 405 , 507 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam); In re Z.M.M., 577 S.W.3d 541, 542 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam); see also TEX. 2020In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d at 234, 237 (holding that “due process and due course of law requirements mandate that an appellate court detail its analysis for an appeal of termination of parental rights” on endangerment grounds because an endangerment finding “becomes a basis to terminate that parent’s rights to other children” under part (M)); see In re L.G., 596 S.W.3d 778 , 781 (Tex. 2020) (per curiam); In re C.W., 586 S.W.3d 405 , 507 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam); In re Z.M.M., 577 S.W.3d 541, 542 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam). | 2 | 2 |
In the Interest of K.S., a Childgreen2 sentences2021P. 47.1; see also In re K.S., 448 S.W.3d 521 , 545 n.24 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2014, pet. denied) (when evidence is sufficient to support termination under one ground, appellate court need not address sufficiency challenges to other grounds for termination in Section 161.001(b)); but see In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019) (due process and due course of law requirements mandate that an appellate court detail its analysis in an appeal of termination of parental rights under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) of the family code if a parent raises such issues.). 3 R.S. did not raise best interest 2020P. 47.1; see also In re K.S., 448 S.W.3d 521 , 545 n.24 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2014, pet. denied) (when evidence is sufficient to support termination under one ground, appellate court need not address sufficiency challenges to other grounds for termination in Section 161.001(b)), but see In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019) (due process and due course of law requirements mandate that an appellate court detail its analysis in an appeal of termination of parental rights under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) of the family code if a parent raises such issues.). 9 individuals seeking custody; (5) | 2 | 2 |
in the Interest of P.W., a Child v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Servicesgreen2 sentences2022In re P.W., 579 S.W.3d at 720 . 2021In re P.W., 579 S.W.3d 713, 720 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.). | 1 | 5 |
Holley v. Adamsgreen1 sentence2020Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
in Re Interest of N.G., a Childgreen2 sentences2022In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003); but see In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019) (due process and due course of law requirements mandate that an appellate court detail its analysis in an appeal of termination of parental rights under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) of the Family Code if a parent raises such issues). 3 TERMINATION UNDER SECTION 161.001(b)(1)(D) In his third issue, C.M. argues the evidence is insufficient to support termination of his parental rights under subsection (D) of Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1). 2021P. 47.1; see also In re K.S., 448 S.W.3d 521 , 545 n.24 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2014, pet. denied) (when evidence is sufficient to support termination under one ground, appellate court need not address sufficiency challenges to other grounds for termination in Section 161.001(b)); but see In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019) (due process and due course of law requirements mandate that an appellate court detail its analysis in an appeal of termination of parental rights under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) of the family code if a parent raises such issues.). 3 R.S. did not raise best interest | 2 | 72 |
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.