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.
10 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2021–2026 10 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rsl Funding, LLC and Rsl Special-Iv Limited Partnership v. Rickey Newsomegreen2 sentences2026Nevertheless, “[a] brief must provide citations or argument and analysis for the contentions[,] and failure to do this can result in waiver.” RSL Funding, LLC v. Newsome, 569 S.W.3d 116, 126 (Tex. 2018) (citing TEX. 2025Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 462 S.W.3d 496, 500 (Tex. 2015) (“Failure to provide citations or argument and analysis as to an appellate issue may waive it.”).5 But Bertucci’s appellate brief did assert arguments on the B-W entities’ behalf.6 Bertucci explicitly argued in his brief that he had “standing to assert his derivative claims” and that 5 See also RSL Funding, LLC v. Newsome, 569 S.W.3d 116, 126 (Tex. 2018) (“A brief must provide citations or argument and analysis for the contentions and failure to do this can result in waiver.”). | 10 | 10 |
Holley v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2022See In re L.E.R., 650 S.W.3d 771 , 789 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2022, no pet.) (concluding parent waived challenge to best- interest finding because conclusory analysis of Holley factors “presents no legal argument” (citing Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 , 371–72 (Tex. 1976))); see also In re E.P., No. 10-22-00086-CV, 2022 WL 2977479 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Waco July 27, 2022, no pet.) (“Citations to the record and legal authorities are required in order to adequately present an issue on appeal.”); S.S. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 03-22-00123-CV, 2022 WL 2500337 , at *7 2022See Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976) (best-interest factors include child’s wishes and present and future needs, present and future danger posed to child, parenting skills of those seeking custody, programs available to assist those individuals to promote child’s best interest, plans for child’s future, stability of home or proposed placement, parent’s conduct that might show inappropriate parent-child relationship, and any excuses for parent’s conduct); see also In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 27 (Tex. 2002) (Holley 16 v. Newsome, 569 S.W.3d 116, 126 (Tex. 2018) (“A brief must pr | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Olanogreen1 sentence2025In truth, “[w]aiver may actually be the wrong term; it may be more accurate to call this forfeiture.” Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919 , 929 n.20 (Tex. 2011) (Willett, J., concurring in part); see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993) (“Waiver is different from forfeiture. | 1 | 1 |
Lezlea Ross v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospitalgreen1 sentence2025Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 462 S.W.3d 496, 500 (Tex. 2015) (“Failure to provide citations or argument and analysis as to an appellate issue may waive it.”).5 But Bertucci’s appellate brief did assert arguments on the B-W entities’ behalf.6 Bertucci explicitly argued in his brief that he had “standing to assert his derivative claims” and that 5 See also RSL Funding, LLC v. Newsome, 569 S.W.3d 116, 126 (Tex. 2018) (“A brief must provide citations or argument and analysis for the contentions and failure to do this can result in waiver.”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re CHgreen1 sentence2022See Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976) (best-interest factors include child’s wishes and present and future needs, present and future danger posed to child, parenting skills of those seeking custody, programs available to assist those individuals to promote child’s best interest, plans for child’s future, stability of home or proposed placement, parent’s conduct that might show inappropriate parent-child relationship, and any excuses for parent’s conduct); see also In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 27 (Tex. 2002) (Holley 16 v. Newsome, 569 S.W.3d 116, 126 (Tex. 2018) (“A brief must pr | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roccaforte v. Jefferson County
green
1 sentence2025In truth, “[w]aiver may actually be the wrong term; it may be more accurate to call this forfeiture.” Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919 , 929 n.20 (Tex. 2011) (Willett, J., concurring in part); see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993) (“Waiver is different from forfeiture. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Tyson v. Texas
procedural
1 sentence2025P. 38.1(i) (requiring argument section of the appellant’s brief to contain “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citation to authorities and to the record.”); RSL Funding, LLC v. Newsome, 569 S.W.3d 116, 126 (Tex. 2018) (“A brief must provide citations or argument and analysis for the contentions and failure to do this can result in waiver.”), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 196 (2019). -5- 04-24-00384-CV of the delay in prosecuting his case was reasonably explained by his second lawyer’s health issues, which “required numerous periods out of the office for treatmen | 1 | 2025–2025 |