9 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Loutzenhiserred2 sentences2008Ctr. at Dallas v. Loutzenhiser , 140 S.W.3d 351, 360 (Tex. 2004), and the consequences of noncompliance provided by the statutory scheme, Sinclair , 984 S.W.2d at 961-62 . 2008Ctr. at Dallas v. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d 351, 360 (Tex.2004), and the consequences of noncompliance provided by the statutory scheme, Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d at 961-62. | 2 | 2 |
Holley v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2002See Holley v. Adams , 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976). 2002See Holley v. Adams , 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976). | 2 | 2 |
In Re JAHgreen2 sentences2002See id. 2002See id. | 2 | 2 |
Delaware v. Van Arsdallgreen1 sentence2024See Haggard, 612 S.W.3d at 329 (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986)); Wells, 611 S.W.3d at 410. | 1 | 1 |
In Re KRPgreen1 sentence2016The Texas Supreme Court has noted that although trial courts are “afforded broad discretion in deciding family law questions, the Legislature has explicitly limited the exercise of that discretion when a nonparent seeks appointment as managing conservator.” Lewelling, 796 S.W.2d at 168 . “[C]lose calls” are to be decided “in favor of the natural parent.” Id.; see also In re K.R.P., 80 S.W.3d 669 , 35 Among factors that a court should consider in making the above determination are “the needs and desires of the children.” TEX. | 1 | 1 |
In Re CHgreen1 sentence2002See In re C.H., 2001 WL 1903109 at *8 . 3 emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the future; (3) the emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the future; (4) the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody; (5) the programs available to assist these individuals to promote the best interest of the child; (6) the plans for the child by these individuals or the agency seeking custody; (7) the stability of the home or proposed placement; (8) the acts or omissions of the parent which may indicate that the parent-child relationship is not a proper one; and (9) an | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lewelling v. Lewelling
green
1 sentence2016The Texas Supreme Court has noted that although trial courts are “afforded broad discretion in deciding family law questions, the Legislature has explicitly limited the exercise of that discretion when a nonparent seeks appointment as managing conservator.” Lewelling, 796 S.W.2d at 168 . “[C]lose calls” are to be decided “in favor of the natural parent.” Id.; see also In re K.R.P., 80 S.W.3d 669 , 35 Among factors that a court should consider in making the above determination are “the needs and desires of the children.” TEX. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Albertson's, Inc. v. Sinclair
green
1 sentence2008Ctr. at Dallas v. Loutzenhiser , 140 S.W.3d 351, 360 (Tex. 2004), and the consequences of noncompliance provided by the statutory scheme, Sinclair , 984 S.W.2d at 961-62 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.