substitute procedural requirement in Texas

68 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1987–2025 7 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.

Followed or applied (11)

Case	Followed	Cited
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen scotus · 1976 · cited in 51 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1987–2025 2 sentences 2025The Supreme Court measures what process is due under a “flexible standard” 16 of 159 App. 000017 Copy from re:SearchTX that depends on “the practical requirements of the circumstances.” This standard includes three factors: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or sub 2025The Supreme Court measures what process is due under a “flexible standard” 16 of 159 App. 000017 Copy from re:SearchTX that depends on “the practical requirements of the circumstances.” This standard includes three factors: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or sub	10	51
Washington v. Harpergreen scotus · 1990 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Id.; see also Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 , 110 S.Ct. 1028 , 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990) (applying Mathews factors to prisoner’s due process attack on prison policy). a. 2008Id.; see also Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 , 110 S.Ct. 1028 , 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990) (applying Mathews factors to prisoner’s due process attack on prison policy). a.	3	3
University of Texas Medical School at Houston v. Thangreen tex · 1995 · cited in 16 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1997–2025 2 sentences 2018A “flexible standard” that focuses on the “practical 14 901 S.W.2d 926 (Tex. 1995). 15 Id. at 930 ; see also Alcorn, 877 S.W.2d at 396 . 10 requirements of the circumstances” applies to determine what process was due.16 Considerations include the private interest affected by official action; the risk that the procedures used will result in an erroneous deprivation of that interest; “the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards”; and “the government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or subst 2018A “flexible standard” that focuses on the “practical 14 901 S.W.2d 926 (Tex. 1995). 15 Id. at 930 ; see also Alcorn, 877 S.W.2d at 396 . 10 requirements of the circumstances” applies to determine what process was due.16 Considerations include the private interest affected by official action; the risk that the procedures used will result in an erroneous deprivation of that interest; “the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards”; and “the government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or subst	2	16
Hamdi v. Rumsfeldgreen scotus · 2004 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. at 903 ; accord Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 529 , 124 S.Ct. at 2646 ; David, 538 U.S. at 716 , 123 S.Ct. at 1896 ; B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 352 ; In re S.K.A, 236 S.W.3d 875, 892 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet. h.); see also M.L.B., 519 U.S. at 120-21 , 117 S.Ct. at 566 (“we inspect the character and intensi ty of the individual interest at stake, on the one hand, and the State’s justification for its exaction on the other”). 2007Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. at 903 ; accord Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 529 , 124 S.Ct. at 2646 ; David, 538 U.S. at 716 , 123 S.Ct. at 1896 ; B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 352 ; In re S.K.A, 236 S.W.3d 875, 892 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet. h.); see also M.L.B., 519 U.S. at 120-21 , 117 S.Ct. at 566 (“we inspect the character and intensi ty of the individual interest at stake, on the one hand, and the State’s justification for its exaction on the other”).	2	2
Mlb v. Sljgreen scotus · 1996 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. at 903 ; accord Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 529 , 124 S.Ct. at 2646 ; David, 538 U.S. at 716 , 123 S.Ct. at 1896 ; B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 352 ; In re S.K.A, 236 S.W.3d 875, 892 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet. h.); see also M.L.B., 519 U.S. at 120-21 , 117 S.Ct. at 566 (“we inspect the character and intensi ty of the individual interest at stake, on the one hand, and the State’s justification for its exaction on the other”). 2007Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. at 903 ; accord Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 529 , 124 S.Ct. at 2646 ; David, 538 U.S. at 716 , 123 S.Ct. at 1896 ; B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 352 ; In re S.K.A, 236 S.W.3d 875, 892 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet. h.); see also M.L.B., 519 U.S. at 120-21 , 117 S.Ct. at 566 (“we inspect the character and intensi ty of the individual interest at stake, on the one hand, and the State’s justification for its exaction on the other”).	2	2
In Re SKAgreen texapp · 2007 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. at 903 ; accord Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 529 , 124 S.Ct. at 2646 ; David, 538 U.S. at 716 , 123 S.Ct. at 1896 ; B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 352 ; In re S.K.A, 236 S.W.3d 875, 892 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet. h.); see also M.L.B., 519 U.S. at 120-21 , 117 S.Ct. at 566 (“we inspect the character and intensi ty of the individual interest at stake, on the one hand, and the State’s justification for its exaction on the other”). 2007Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. at 903 ; accord Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 529 , 124 S.Ct. at 2646 ; David, 538 U.S. at 716 , 123 S.Ct. at 1896 ; B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 352 ; In re S.K.A., 236 S.W.3d 875, 892 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet. h.); see also M.L.B., 519 U.S. at 120-21 , 117 S.Ct. at 566 ("we inspect the character and intensity *409 of the individual interest at "stake, on the one hand; and the State's justification for its exaction oh the other").	2	2
In Re BLDgreen tex · 2003 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2018 2 sentences 2018Id. (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 ); see also In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 352 (Tex. 2003). 2007Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. at 903 ; accord Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 529 , 124 S.Ct. at 2646 ; David, 538 U.S. at 716 , 123 S.Ct. at 1896 ; B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 352 ; In re S.K.A, 236 S.W.3d 875, 892 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet. h.); see also M.L.B., 519 U.S. at 120-21 , 117 S.Ct. at 566 (“we inspect the character and intensi ty of the individual interest at stake, on the one hand, and the State’s justification for its exaction on the other”).	1	3
Zinermon v. Burchgreen scotus · 1990 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1990–2012 2 sentences 2012The United States Supreme Court “usually has held that the Constitution requires some kind of a hearing before the State deprives a person of liberty or property.” Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127 , 110 S.Ct. 975 , 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990). 2012The United States Supreme Court “usually has held that the Constitution requires some kind of a hearing before the State deprives a person of liberty or property.” Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127 , 110 S.Ct. 975 , 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990).	1	3
Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.green scotus · 1982 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1990–2015 2 sentences 2015The relevant interests have generally Government's interest, including the function involved and been recognized as threefold: “the importance of the private the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or interest and the length or finality of the deprivation, the substitute procedural requirement [in this case, a speedier likelihood of governmental error, and the magnitude of hearing and decision] would entail,” 424 U.S., at 335, 96 the governmental interests involved.” Logan v. Zimmerman S.Ct., at 903—sensibly be evaluated in this case. 5 I therefore Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 43 2015The relevant interests have generally Government's interest, including the function involved and been recognized as threefold: “the importance of the private the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or interest and the length or finality of the deprivation, the substitute procedural requirement [in this case, a speedier likelihood of governmental error, and the magnitude of hearing and decision] would entail,” 424 U.S., at 335, 96 the governmental interests involved.” Logan v. Zimmerman S.Ct., at 903—sensibly be evaluated in this case. 5 I therefore Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 43	1	2
United States Government v. Marksgreen tex · 1997 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019United States Gov't v. Marks, 949 S.W.2d 320, 326 (Tex. 1997); Than, 901 S.W.2d at 930 .	1	1
Alcorn v. Vaksmangreen texapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018A “flexible standard” that focuses on the “practical 14 901 S.W.2d 926 (Tex. 1995). 15 Id. at 930 ; see also Alcorn, 877 S.W.2d at 396 . 10 requirements of the circumstances” applies to determine what process was due.16 Considerations include the private interest affected by official action; the risk that the procedures used will result in an erroneous deprivation of that interest; “the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards”; and “the government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or subst	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (17)

Case	Cited	Years
Goldberg v. Kelly green scotus · 1970 2 sentences 2019Id. (citing Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 263-271 ). 2015Id. at 335 .	2	2015–2019
Anthony v. State green texapp · 2006 2 sentences 2015Anthony, 209 S.W.3d at 307 . 2013“This flexible standard includes three factors: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Id. (quoting Univ. of Tex. Med.	2	2013–2015
Rodarte v. Cox green texapp · 1991 2 sentences 2013Id. (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S. Ct. at 903 ). 2013Id. (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. at 903 ).	2	2013–2013
City of Los Angeles v. David green scotus · 2003 2 sentences 2007Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. at 903 ; accord Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 529 , 124 S.Ct. at 2646 ; David, 538 U.S. at 716 , 123 S.Ct. at 1896 ; B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 352 ; In re S.K.A, 236 S.W.3d 875, 892 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet. h.); see also M.L.B., 519 U.S. at 120-21 , 117 S.Ct. at 566 (“we inspect the character and intensi ty of the individual interest at stake, on the one hand, and the State’s justification for its exaction on the other”). 2007Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. at 903 ; accord Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 529 , 124 S.Ct. at 2646 ; David, 538 U.S. at 716 , 123 S.Ct. at 1896 ; B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 352 ; In re S.K.A, 236 S.W.3d 875, 892 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet. h.); see also M.L.B., 519 U.S. at 120-21 , 117 S.Ct. at 566 (“we inspect the character and intensi ty of the individual interest at stake, on the one hand, and the State’s justification for its exaction on the other”).	2	2007–2007
Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. Doe green scotus · 1993 2 sentences 2002Heller, 509 U.S. at 330-31 , 113 S.Ct. at 2648 ; Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 903 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). 2002Heller, 509 U.S. at 330-31 , 113 S.Ct. at 2648 ; Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 903 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976).	2	2002–2002
In re State green tex · 2018 1 sentence 2021See id.; In re State, 556 S.W.3d at 829 .	1	2021–2021
Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz green scotus · 1978 2 sentences 2020Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 86 n.3, (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. 2020Id. (citing Than, 901 S.W.2d at 930 ). 4 We rely on the opinions of our sister courts and the federal courts for the rule establishing this distinction.	1	2020–2020
Landon v. Plasencia green scotus · 1982 1 sentence 2019To determine the amount of process due, three Eldridge factors are balanced: (1) “the private interest that will be affected by the official action;” (2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards;” and (3) “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Id. at 319–20 (quoting Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 (1976)).	1	2019–2019
McAllen Hospitals, L.P. v. Suehs green texapp · 2014 1 sentence 2019The dissent criticizes this decision and asks what we “expect the trial court to perform on remand that it did not perform the first time, and that this court could not determine for itself?” First, we expect the trial court to comply with our instructions and to perform the Eldridge analyses (specifically including (inter alia) “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 334 (citing Goldberg, 14 The dissent’s citations to McAllen Hospitals, L.	1	2019–2019
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. green scotus · 1950 1 sentence 2019Id. (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 ).	1	2019–2019
Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy green scotus · 1961 1 sentence 2019Id. (citing Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 263-271 ).	1	2019–2019
Robert Scott, Commissioner of Education v. Alphonso Crutch LSC Charter School, Inc. green texapp · 2010 1 sentence 2019The dissent criticizes this decision and asks what we “expect the trial court to perform on remand that it did not perform the first time, and that this court could not determine for itself?” First, we expect the trial court to comply with our instructions and to perform the Eldridge analyses (specifically including (inter alia) “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 334 (citing Goldberg, 14 The dissent’s citations to McAllen Hospitals, L.	1	2019–2019
Meza v. Livingston green ca5 · 2010 1 sentence 2018Id. at 402 (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319 , 335, 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) ).	1	2018–2018
United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred & Fifty Dollars green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 2015I respectfully dissent from the Court's contrary 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); cf. United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. decision in Part V. 555, 564, 103 S.Ct. 2005, 2012 , 76 L.Ed.2d 143 (1983) (four- factor test for evaluating constitutionality of delay between time of property seizure and initiation of forfeiture action). 559 Justice REHNQUIST, dissenting. 2015I respectfully dissent from the Court's contrary 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); cf. United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. decision in Part V. 555, 564, 103 S.Ct. 2005, 2012 , 76 L.Ed.2d 143 (1983) (four- factor test for evaluating constitutionality of delay between time of property seizure and initiation of forfeiture action). 559 Justice REHNQUIST, dissenting.	1	2015–2015
Harrell v. State green tex · 2009 1 sentence 2014Id. at 319–20. 4 We affirm the trial court’s judgment.	1	2014–2014
Reed v. State green texapp · 2008 1 sentence 2012Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. 893 ; Reed, 269 S.W.3d at 625 . 1.	1	2012–2012
Bexar County Sheriff's Civil Service Commission v. Davis green tex · 1990 1 sentence 1999Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); Bexar County Civil Service Comm’n v. Davis, 802 S.W.2d at 662-63 .	1	1999–1999

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TX § Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001 (9) USC § 42u.s.c.1983 (6) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 30.05 (5) TX § Tex. Fam. Code § 101.007 (4) TX § Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002 (4) TX § Tex. Fam. Code § 263.401 (4) TX § Tex. Fam. Code § 263.405 (4) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 1.07 (4) TX § Tex. Fam. Code § 153.001 (3) TX § Tex. Ins. Code § 823.012 (3) TX § Tex. Ins. Code § 823.157 (3) TX § Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 331.005 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 104 (1978–2025) IL 83 (1979–2025) TX 68 (1987–2025) WA 66 (1979–2025) CT 52 (1979–2025) NJ 50 (1978–2026) MI 46 (1978–2026) OH 40 (1981–2026) ME 38 (1981–2023) MN 35 (1983–2026) PA 33 (1976–2025) ID 32 (1980–2026) TN 32 (1993–2024) MD 31 (1977–2023) NY 31 (1978–2025) OR 29 (1976–2026) IA 23 (1979–2023) NM 23 (1983–2025) MA 22 (1982–2023) LA 22 (1985–2022) NC 18 (1981–2026) NH 17 (1980–2021) WI 16 (1978–2024) DC 16 (1978–2024) ND 15 (1988–2022) AZ 13 (1983–2025) CO 12 (1977–2022) WV 12 (1978–2002) KS 11 (1988–2024) IN 11 (1980–2020) AK 11 (1983–2024) UT 9 (1995–2014) OK 8 (1996–2018) NE 7 (1990–2021) AR 7 (1987–2012) FL 7 (1986–2024) RI 7 (1990–2015) VA 6 (1992–2025) DE 5 (1989–2019) KY 5 (2005–2024) HI 5 (1996–2023) MO 5 (1986–2019) MT 4 (1984–2016) NV 4 (1987–2021) VT 3 (2015–2021) GA 3 (1986–2008) SD 2 (1986–2011) SC 2 (1996–1998)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check