material error in Texas

2024However, a parent who fails to comply with one or more material requirements cannot avoid termination under subsection (O) “merely by showing that he complied with the plan’s other requirements.” Id. “[P]arents cannot 44 overcome the complete failure to comply with a material requirement by arguing that performing other requirements constitutes substantial compliance with the plan overall.” Id.; In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 278 (“[T]hese sporadic incidents of partial compliance [with the service plan] do not alter the undisputed fact that the parents violated many material provisions of the tria

2014See In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 278 .

2022See Kramer v. Kastleman, 508 S.W.3d 211, 216 (Tex. 2017) (“This, of course, is always the case when remand is required based on a material error affecting the trial court’s just-and-right property division; a party could always get more, less, or different.”). 8

2021See id. at 807–08 (holding that ex-husband’s argument failed to recognize that the court had divided community property unevenly because of his behavior during the 31 marriage and would have to re-divide the assets to reach a new “just and right” division if it erred by characterizing the ex-husband’s claimed cash as community property); see also Kramer, 508 S.W.3d at 216 (“This, of course, is always the case when remand is required based on a material error affecting the trial court’s just-and-right property division; a party could always get more, less, or different.”).

2009The Texas Supreme Court has held that fiduciaries have a duty to disclose material facts within their knowledge to the beneficiary, and that, consequently, whether the beneficiary relied upon the fiduciary to make the disclosure is "not a material inquiry." See Johnson v. Peckham , 120 S.W.2d 786, 788 (Tex. 1938) (holding that trial court did not err in refusing to submit special issue to jury inquiring whether one partner relied on other partner to make disclosure about prior negotiations for sale of property); cf. Schlumberger , 959 S.W.2d at 181 (distinguishing Johnson by noting that there

2009The Texas Supreme Court has held that fiduciaries have a duty to disclose material facts within their knowledge to the beneficiary, and that, consequently, whether the beneficiary relied upon the fiduciary to make the disclosure is “not a material inquiry.” See Johnson v. Peckham, 120 S.W.2d 786, 788 (Tex. 1938) (holding that trial court did not err in refusing to submit special issue to jury inquiring whether one partner relied on other partner to make disclosure about prior negotiations for sale of property); cf. Schlumberger, 959 S.W.2d at 181 (distinguishing Johnson by noting that there wa

2009The Texas Supreme Court has held that fiduciaries have a duty to disclose material facts within their knowledge to the beneficiary, and that, consequently, whether the beneficiary relied upon the fiduciary to make the disclosure is "not a material inquiry." See Johnson v. Peckham , 120 S.W.2d 786, 788 (Tex. 1938) (holding that trial court did not err in refusing to submit special issue to jury inquiring whether one partner relied on other partner to make disclosure about prior negotiations for sale of property); cf. Schlumberger , 959 S.W.2d at 181 (distinguishing Johnson by noting that there

2009The Texas Supreme Court has held that fiduciaries have a duty to disclose material facts within their knowledge to the beneficiary, and that, consequently, whether the beneficiary relied upon the fiduciary to make the disclosure is “not a material inquiry.” See Johnson v. Peckham, 120 S.W.2d 786, 788 (Tex. 1938) (holding that trial court did not err in refusing to submit special issue to jury inquiring whether one partner relied on other partner to make disclosure about prior negotiations for sale of property); cf. Schlumberger, 959 S.W.2d at 181 (distinguishing Johnson by noting that there wa

2025“It is incumbent upon a defendant relying on [Rule 21.3(e)] to show that acts or omissions constituting fraud prevented the missing witness from appearing in court.” Rodriguez v. State, 21 S.W.3d 562, 567 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d).

2013The underlying rationale for the fraud provision in this rule is “to provide relief in those rare instances in which a material defense witness is deceived or tricked into not appearing in court.” Rodriguez, 21 S.W.3d at 567 .

2023See In re M.C.G., 329 S.W.3d 674, 676 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (supp. op. on reh’g) (“The Family Code does not provide for substantial compliance with a family services plan.” (emphasis added)).

2023See Salinas, 980 S.W.2d at 521 .

2022See id.

2021See id. at 807–08 (holding that ex-husband’s argument failed to recognize that the court had divided community property unevenly because of his behavior during the 31 marriage and would have to re-divide the assets to reach a new “just and right” division if it erred by characterizing the ex-husband’s claimed cash as community property); see also Kramer, 508 S.W.3d at 216 (“This, of course, is always the case when remand is required based on a material error affecting the trial court’s just-and-right property division; a party could always get more, less, or different.”).

2020Holden v. State, 201 S.W.3d 761, 763 (Tex. Crim.

2019See Doggett, 505 U.S. at 657 .

2016It may well be a violation of fundamental fairness, a violation of due process of law, a violation of the due course of law of the land.” Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 176 (Tex. Crim.

2016See id. or the delay in providing an accounting, appellee reasons that, even if these items were undisputed, they "cannot substitute Although the former statute provided (and the current statute for the missing fact finding that any such breaches constituted continues to provide) that a tmstee may be removed for a material violation causing any material loss," a ground _ specified in the statute (material violation of tmst resulting in material financial loss, incompetence, or *791 [31) [32] Nonetheless, we believe the trial judge's insolvency) or "for other cause, in the discretion of the rea

2016We agree with the trial court that act on the part of the trial court and hence subject upon breaches of fiduciary duty can constitute material violations review to the 'arbitrary and unreasonable* standard," See id. of the trust.

2015Id. at 858; see also mitted a material error in instructing the jury regarding Carr v. Hunt, 651 S.W.2d 875 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas issue 3 that they could consider consequential loss, © 2015 Thomson Reuters.

2014See Cooper v. S. Co., 390 F.3d 695, 741, 743, 745 (11th Cir.2004), overruled on other grounds by Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U.S. 454 , 126 S.Ct. 1195 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1053 (2006).

2014See Cooper v. S. Co., 390 F.3d 695, 741, 743, 745 (11th Cir.2004), overruled on other grounds by Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U.S. 454 , 126 S.Ct. 1195 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1053 (2006).

2014See Cooper v. S. Co., 390 F.3d 695, 741, 743, 745 (11th Cir.2004), overruled on other grounds by Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U.S. 454 , 126 S.Ct. 1195 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1053 (2006).

2004See Erwin , 729 S.W.2d at 713–14 .